511.pdf
[12.74 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.

File Format:

Adobe Reader

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Planand Environmental AssessmentPathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge
July 2008Prepared by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicePathfi nder National Wildlife Service, Region 6Division of Refuge PlanningPO Box 25486 DFCLakewood, CO 80225303/236 4365andRegion 6, Mountain-Prairie RegionDivision of Refuge Planning134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300Lakewood, CO 80228303/236 4305Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................................ i
Summary...................................................................................................................................................................... iv
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ......................................................................................................................... 11.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System ........................................................................ 31.3 National and Regional Mandates ....................................................................................................................... 41.4 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans ................................................................................. 41.5 Ecosystem Description and Threats .................................................................................................................. 61.6 The Planning Process .......................................................................................................................................... 6
2 The Refuge ................................................................................................................................................ 11
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History ................................................................................ 112.2 Special Values of the Refuge ............................................................................................................................. 122.3 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................ 132.4 Vision .................................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.5 Goals ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.6 Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................................... 15
3 Alternatives .............................................................................................................................................. 17
3.1 Alternatives Development................................................................................................................................ 173.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ........................................................................................................ 18
3.3 Elements Common to All Alternatives............................................................................................................ 18
3.4 Description of Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 183.5 Comparison of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 26
4 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................................. 33
4.1 Physical Environment ....................................................................................................................................... 334.2 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 374.3 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 42
4.4 Special Management Areas ............................................................................................................................... 434.5 Visitor Services .................................................................................................................................................. 43
4.6 Partnerships ........................................................................................................................................................ 454.7 Socioeconomic Environment ............................................................................................................................. 45
4.8 Operations ........................................................................................................................................................... 46
5 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................... 49
5.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives ................................................................................................................
49
5.2 Description of Consequences by Alternative..................................................................................................5.3 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................................................................
50 56
6 Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) ......................................................................... 57
6.1 Identifi cation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP)........................................................................................ 576.2 Summary of the Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................... 586.3 Draft CCP............................................................................................................................................................ 59
6.6 Staffi ng and Funding ......................................................................................................................................... 656.5 Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 656.5 Plan Amendment and Revision ......................................................................................................................... 65
Contents Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 67
Appendixes
A. Key Legislation and Policies ........................................................................................................................ 75
B. List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination ................................................................................... 79
C. Public Involvement ....................................................................................................................................... 81
D. Memorandum of Understanding...................................................................................................................83
E. Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy .................................................................................................................. 87
F. Compatibility Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 95
G. Draft Compatibility Determination for Hunting ..................................................................................... 107
H. Draft Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and Photography ................................ 109
I. Draft Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation ..................... 111
J. Draft Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing .................................................................. 113
K. Fire Management Program ......................................................................................................................... 115
L. List of Plant Species .................................................................................................................................... 119
M. List of Potentially Occurring Bird Species ............................................................................................... 123
N. List of Potentially Occurring Amphibian and Reptile Species ............................................................. 127
O. List of Potentially Occurring Mammal Species ........................................................................................ 129
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................. 131Figures and Tables
FIGURES
1 Vicinity map for Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming ............................................................................................... 2
2 Pathfi nder NWR is located in the Wyoming Basin, physiographic area 86 ............................................. 5
3 Platte–Kansas Rivers ecosystem. ................................................................................................................... 7
4 The planning process. ....................................................................................................................................... 8
5 Base map of Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming .................................................................................................... 14
6 Areas to Be Removed from Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming ......................................................................... 23
7 Pathfi nder Reservoir storage ........................................................................................................................ 24
8 Habitats at Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming ...................................................................................................... 38
9 Infrastructure and public use areas at Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming ....................................................... 44
10 Location of Pathfi nder NWR ......................................................................................................................... 45
11 Wyoming and study area population ............................................................................................................ 46
12 Study area age composition ........................................................................................................................... 47
13 Study area employment distribution, 200 .................................................................................................... 47
14 Draft CCP map of Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming .......................................................................................... 60
15 Proposed boundary of Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming ................................................................................... 61
16 The adaptive management process. .............................................................................................................. 66
TABLES
1 Planning process summary for Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming ...................................................................... 9
2 Comparison of management alternatives and environmental
consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming. ................................................. 26
3 Bureau of Reclamation irrigation rights for the Sweetwater
River and Horse Creek, Wyoming. ............................................................................................................... 36
4 Documented occurrences of vertebrate species of concern within
Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming. .......................................................................................................................... 42
5 Current staff for the Arapaho NWR Complex, Colorado. ........................................................................ 46
6 Step-down management plans for Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming. ............................................................. 66Abbreviations
Administration Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
BSFW
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
CCC
Civilian Conservation Corps
CCP
comprehensive conservation plan
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cfs
cubic feet per second
CRP
conservation reserve program
EA
environmental assessment
EO
executive order
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
FMP
fi re management plan
FONSI
fi nding of no signifi cant impact
FTE
full-time equivalent
GIS
geographic information system
GPS
global positioning system
GS
general schedule (employment)
Improvement Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
LPP
Land Protection Plan
NABCI
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
NAWMP
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
NAWCA
North American Wetlands Conservation Act
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NGO
nongovernmental organization
NOI
notice of intent
NWR
national wildlife refuge
NWRS
National Wildlife Refuge System
PFW
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Refuge System
National Wildlife Refuge System
Region 6
Mountain–Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
RONS
Refuge Operating Needs System
SAMMS
Service Asset Maintenance Management System
Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SUP
special use permit
SWG
State Wildlife Grant
TNC
The Nature Conservancy
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WG
wage grade (employment)
WGFD
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
WUI
wildland–urban interfaceSummary
Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming
Mark Ely/USFWS
This is a summary of the draft comprehensive conservation plan for the Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge in Carbon and Natrona counties, Wyoming. This plan, when approved, will guide management of the refuge for the next 15 years. Assessing the refuge’s ability to provide quality wildlife habitat for migratory bird species and actively managing the refuge to achieve this end, along with identifying and providing appropriate public uses on the refuge, were key factors driving the development of this plan.The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 for each unit in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
THE REFUGE
Located in central Wyoming in a high plains basin near the headwaters of the “Platte–Kansas Rivers” ecosystem, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge lies approximately 47 miles southwest of the city of Casper. Pathfi nder Dam construction was completed in 1909, creating the fi rst reservoir on the North Platte River.At the same time, Pathfi nder Wildlife Refuge (later renamed “Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge”) was established as an overlay refuge on Bureau of
Reclamation lands on the reservoir. This large body of water was very attractive to waterbirds, and where the refuge once offered a unique environment in this semiarid region of Wyoming, the reservoir on which it is situated is now part of a larger system of reservoirs including Alcova to the north and Seminoe to the south. Major habitat types of Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge include open water wetlands, uplands consisting of shrub and grasslands, and alkali fl ats.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
The comprehensive conservation plan process consists of a series of steps including environmental analysis. Public and partner involvement are encouraged and valued throughout the process. Management alternatives are developed to meet the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge. Implementation of the fi nal comprehensive conservation plan will be monitored throughout its 15-year effective period.
ISSUES
Public scoping for the Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge initiated in May 2006, along with refuge information, identifi ed nine major areas of concern regarding management of the refuge.
Refuge Management
Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Refuge staff are headquartered near Walden, Colorado, approximately a four-hour drive from the refuge. The complex’s small staff size (four full-time employees), limited resources, and remote headquarters create management challenges for the refuge, including a lack of day-to-day oversight and minimal opportunities for law enforcement. Degrading infrastructure (specifi cally, roads, fences, and signs) and litter occur on the refuge due to lack of active management. Management of Pathfi nder Reservoir and refuge lands by multiple agencies creates additional management challenges. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently has memorandums of agreement and understanding with a number of agencies in the Casper region including the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and Natrona County. x Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
The Bureau of Reclamation has a withdrawal on Pathfi nder Reservoir project lands to support project purposes (i.e., fl ood control, irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a withdrawal on refuge lands for wildlife management purposes. The roles and responsibilities of each agency should be clearly defi ned, evaluated, and simplifi ed where possible during the comprehensive conservation plan process.
Refuge Uses
Refuge uses (grazing and recreation) need to be evaluated to ensure existing and proposed uses are compatible with the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Refuge uses have not been actively evaluated over time due to minimal staff presence. Through the development of this comprehensive conservation plan, refuge uses and management activities will be evaluated to ensure the best, most informed decisions are made for proper management of refuge lands. For a use to be deemed compatible, appropriate staff and resources must be available to manage the use.
Water Resources
Water and water availability are vital in semiarid regions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not own water rights for the refuge, which can result in poor wildlife habitat for trust species.
Water Level Fluctuation
During the past 20 years (from 1987 to 2007), the average fl uctuation of the reservoir water level was 20 feet per year with a range of 8–40 feet, resulting in a lack of shoreline vegetation and food source for migratory birds and nesting cover for waterfowl. The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for managing reservoir water levels.
Separated Land Parcels
The refuge consists of four separate units. Separated land parcels are generally more diffi cult to access and manage than contiguous parcels of land, and generally of less value to wildlife.
Invasive Species
Invasive species are a threat to quality habitat. If not contained early, they can also drain resources. Tamarisk and Canada thistle have been identifi ed on the refuge. An increase in monitoring, management, and control of these and other invasive species is needed.
Research and Science
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needs to obtain good baseline data for the refuge. Monitoring programs need to be implemented for species that use the refuge. Audubon Wyoming could be a partnerin gathering quality research data on the refuge.
Partnerships
Cooperation with other agencies is needed to address issues of common concern. Opportunities for the public to assist in the protection and management of the refuge should be identifi ed and provided. Local conservation groups could help raise funds for the refuge either directly or by lobbying state and federal representatives.
Staffi ng
The refuge should be managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff stationed in Wyoming. This issue was raised frequently in public meetings. The managing staff is currently headquartered at Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge in Walden, Colorado, approximately 240 miles away from the refuge. The remote location of staff prevents active, consistent oversight of the refuge.
THE FUTURE OF THE REFUGE
The issues, along with resource conditions, were important considerations during the development of the vision and goals for the refuge.
THE VISION OF THE REFUGE
The vision describes what the refuge will be and what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hopes to do, and is based primarily on the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and specifi c purposes of the refuge.
Pathfi nder Reservoir and surrounding public lands supply life-cycle needs for a multitude of wildlife adapted to this semiarid region of central Wyoming. The wetland complexes, upland sagebrush habitats, and open waters of the reservoir provide feeding, breeding, staging, resting, and nesting areas for migratory birds and resident wildlife. Management decisions will be directed toward maintaining or improving wildlife habitat values. Appropriate public use opportunities will be identifi ed, and provided where possible.
GOALS
The following goals were developed to meet the vision of the Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge.
Natural Resources Goal
Conserve the ecological diversity of uplands and wetlands to support healthy populations of native wildlife, with an emphasis on migratory birds. Summary xi
Visitor Services Goal
Provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities to a diverse audience when the administration of these programs does not adverselyaffect habitat management objectives.
Partnerships Goal
Work with partners to support healthy populations of native wildlife and to increase understanding of wildlife needs as well as the benefi ts wildlife offer tolocal communities.
Cultural Resources Goal
Identify and evaluate the cultural resources on the refuge and protect those that are determined to be signifi cant.
Administrative Goal
Obtain administrative capabilities that will result in effi cient strategies to manage the landscape to achieve habitat and public management goals.
ALTERNATIVES
The planning team developed the following three alternatives as management options for addressing the key issues.
Alternative A—Current Management (No Action)
This no-action alternative refl ects the current management of the Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge. It provides the baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. Refuge habitats would continue to be minimally managed on an opportunistic schedule that may maintain—or most likely would result in further decline in—the diversity of vegetation and wildlife species. Only limited data collection and monitoring of habitats and wildlife species would occur on the refuge. Outreach and partnerships would continue at present minimal levels.
Alternative B—Enhanced Refuge Management
Management activities under alternative B would be increased. Upland habitats would be evaluated and managed for the benefi t of migratory bird species. Monitoring and management of invasive species on the refuge would be increased. With additional staffi ng, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would collect baseline biological information for wildlife and habitats. Wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities would be provided and enhanced where compatible with refuge purposes. Efforts would be increased in the operations and maintenance of natural resources on the refuge and to maintain and develop partnerships that promote wildlife and habitat research and management.
Alternative C—Modify Refuge Boundary (Proposed Action)
Alternative C is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed action and basis for the draft comprehensive conservation plan. Under Alternative C, the refuge boundary would be modifi ed to remove areas from the refuge that provide minimal opportunity to improve wildlife habitat and are diffi cult to manage. Remaining refuge areas would be managed similar to those actions described in alternative B. Modifying the refuge’s boundary would enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to focus efforts on manageable lands, thereby enhancing refuge management and effi ciently directing refuge resources toward accomplishing the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System1 Introduction
Hooded Merganser
Glen Smart/USFWS
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS) has developed this draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) to provide a foundation for the management and use of the Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) located in central Wyoming near the city of Casper (fi gure 1). When fi nalized, the CCP will serve as a working guide for management programs and actions over the next 15 years.This draft CCP was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described within this draft CCP and environmental assessment (EA) meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Compliance with the NEPA is being achieved through the involvement of the public.The fi nal CCP will specify the necessary actions to achieve the vision and purposes of Pathfi nder NWR. Wildlife is the fi rst priority in refuge management, and public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with the refuge’s purpose.The draft CCP and the EA have been prepared by a planning team comprised of representatives from various Service programs (refuge planning, educationand visitor services, and ecological services), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department (WGFD). In addition, the planning team incorporated public input. Public involvement and the planning process are described in section 1.6 below.After reviewing a wide range of public comments and management needs, the planning team developed alternatives for management of the refuge. The team recommended one alternative to be the Service’s proposed action. This action addresses all substantive issues while determining how best to achieve the purpose of the refuge. The proposed action is the Service’s recommended course of action for management of the refuge. The proposed action is summarized in chapter 3, with its predicted effects described in chapter 5. The details of the proposed action compose the draft CCP (chapter 6).
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the role that the refuge will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), and to provide long-term guidance for management of refuge programs and activities. The CCP is needed:􀁒􅈠 to communicate with the public and other partners in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge System;􀁒􅈠 to provide a clear statement of direction for management of the refuge;2 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Map showing location of the refuge within Wyoming. Map showing location of the refuge within Wyoming.Map showing location of the refuge within Wyoming.Chapter 1 — Introduction 3
􀁒􅉴to provide neighbors, visitors, and government offi cials with an understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;􀁒􅉴to ensure that the Service’s management actions are consistent with the mandates of the Improvement Act;􀁒􅉴to ensure that management of the refuge is consistent with federal, state, and county plans;􀁒􅉴to provide a basis for development of budget requests for the refuge’s operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.Sustaining the nation’s fi sh and wildlife resources is a task that can be accomplished only through the combined efforts of governments, businesses, and private citizens.
1.2 THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM
The Service is the principal federal agency responsible for fi sh, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge System is one of the Service’s major programs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people.
Over a century ago, America’s fi sh and wildlife resources were declining at an alarming rate. Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling groups joined together to restore and sustain America’s national wildlife heritage. This was the genesis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers endangered species, and helps other governments with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service administers a federal aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars to states for fi sh and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, and related programs across America.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s fi rst wildlife refuge for the protection of brown pelicans and other native, nesting birds. This small but signifi cant designation was the beginning of the Refuge System.
One hundred years later, the Refuge System has become the largest collection of lands in the world specifi cally managed for wildlife, encompassing over 96 million acres within 546 refuges and over 3,000 small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting. Today, there is at least one refuge in every state as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.In 1997, the Improvement Act established a clear mission for the Refuge System.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefi t of present and future generations of Americans.
The Improvement Act states that each national wildlife refuge shall be managed􀁒􅉴to fulfi ll the mission of the Refuge System;􀁒􅉴to fulfi ll the individual purposes of each refuge;􀁒􅉴to consider the needs of fi sh and wildlife fi rst;􀁒􅉴to fulfi ll the requirement of developing a CCP for each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;􀁒􅉴to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;􀁒􅉴to recognize that the six wildlife-dependent recreation activities (hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are legitimate and priority public uses;􀁒􅉴to retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge System stresses the following principles:􀁒􅉗Wildlife comes fi rst.􀁒􅉅Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts.􀁒􅉈Habitats must be healthy.􀁒􅉇Growth of the Refuge System must be strategic.􀁒􅉔The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from others.4 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Following passage of the Improvement Act, the Service immediately began to carry out the direction of the new legislation, including preparation of CCPs for all national wildlife refuges and wetland management districts. Consistent with the Improvement Act, the Service prepares all CCPs in conjunction with public involvement. Each refuge is required to complete its CCP within the 15-year schedule (by 2012).
PEOPLE AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM
The nation’s fi sh and wildlife heritage contributes to the quality of American lives. Wildlife and wild placesprovide special opportunities to recreate, relax, and enjoy the natural world.Whether through bird watching, fi shing, hunting, photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife recreation contributes millions of dollars to local economies. In 2006, nearly 35 million people visited the Refuge System, mostly to observe wildlife in their natural habitats (Carver and Caudill 2007). Visitors are most often accommodated through nature trails, auto tours, interpretive programs, and hunting and fi shing opportunities. Signifi cant economic benefi ts are being generated to the local communities that surround refuges. During fi scal year 2006, recreational use on national wildlife refuges generated almost $1.7 billion of sales in regional economies, supported approximately 27,000 private sector jobs, produced about $543 million in employment income, and generated nearly $185.3 million in tax revenue at the local, county, state, and federal levels (Carver and Caudill 2007).
1.3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL MANDATES
Refuge System units are managed to achieve the designated purpose of the refuge (as described in establishing legislation, executive orders, or other establishing documents) and the mission and goals of the Refuge System. Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System are in the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act), Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” and the Improvement Act.The Improvement Act amends the Administration Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process for determining compatible public uses on refuges, and a requirement that each refuge be managed under a CCP. The Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of the Interior will ensure the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge must be managed to fulfi ll the Refuge System’s mission and the specifi c purposes for which it was established. The
Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fi sh, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.A detailed description of these and other laws and executive orders that may affect the CCP or the Service’s implementation of the CCP is in appendix A. Service policies on planning and day-to-day management of refuges are in the “Refuge System Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.”
1.4 REFUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANS
Pathfi nder NWR contributes to the conservation efforts described here.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE
A 1999 report, “Fulfi lling the Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1999), is the culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report was the focus of the fi rst national Refuge System conference in 1998 attended by refuge managers, other Service employees, and representatives from leading conservation organizations.The report contains 42 recommendations packaged with three vision statements dealing with wildlife and habitat, people, and leadership. This draft CCP deals with all three of these major topics. The planning team looked to the recommendations in the document for guidance during CCP planning.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT
The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 with the recognition of declining population levels of many migratory bird species. The challenge, according to the program, is managing human population growth while maintaining functional natural ecosystems. To meet this challenge, Partners in Flight worked to establish priorities for conservation efforts and identify land bird species and habitat types. Partners in Flight activity has resulted in 52 bird conservation plans covering the continental United States.The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide for the long-term health of the bird life of North America. The fi rst priority is to prevent the rarest species from going extinct, the second is to prevent uncommon species from descending into threatened status, and the third is to “keep common birds common.”There are 58 physiographic areas, defi ned by similar physical geographic features, wholly or partially contained within the contiguous United States and several others wholly or partially in Alaska. Pathfi nder NWR falls within physiographic area 86, the Wyoming Basin (fi gure 2).Chapter 1 — Introduction 5
U.S. map showing physiographic areas. U.S. map showing physiographic areas.U.S. map showing physiographic areas.
The Wyoming Basin is primarily in Wyoming but also extends into northern Colorado, southern Montana, and very small parts of northeast Utah and southeast Idaho. The area consists of broad intermountain basins interrupted by isolated hills and low mountains that merge to the south into a dissected plateau. The Wyoming Basin is primarily shrub–steppe habitat, dominated by sagebrush and shadscale, interspersed with areas of short-grass prairie. Higher elevations are in mountain shrub vegetation, with coniferous forest atop the highest areas. Priority bird populations and habitats of the Wyoming Basin include:Shrub–Steppe Ferruginous hawk Prairie falcon Greater sage-grouse Cassin’s kingbird Sage thrasher Brewer’s sparrow Sage sparrowSagebrush Grasslands Swainson’s hawk Mountain plover McCowan’s longspur
Montane Shrub Lewis’s woodpecker Virginia’s warblerWetlands American white pelican Wilson’s phalaropeA large percentage of the Wyoming Basin is in public ownership, with the BLM owning much of the lower elevation shrub–steppe and grassland and the U.S. Forest Service owning a great deal of the higher-elevation wooded land. A checkerboard pattern of land ownership is a subtle problem that affects the consistency of land management over large areas. The primary land use in the Wyoming Basin has been for many years and continues to be grazing, although conversion to agriculture is also an issue. The effects of overgrazing and nonnative plant invasion should be mitigated to improve conditions for breeding birds. Maintenance of springs and riparian habitat may be crucial, particularly to sage-grouse. Fencing or changing grazing systems may be effective in maintaining water fl ow. Oil and gas extraction and hard rock mining are relatively recent factors that may negatively affect the greater landscape needs of the sage-grouse (Nicholoff 2003).6 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
RECOVERY PLANS FOR FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
Where federally listed threatened or endangered species occur at Pathfi nder NWR, management goals and strategies in their respective recovery plans will be followed. The list of threatened or endangered species that occur at the refuge will change as species are listed or delisted, or as listed species are discovered on refuge lands. Currently, no federally listed threatened or endangered species occur at the refuge.
STATE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION WILDLIFE STRATEGY
Over the past several decades, documented declines of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) program in 2001. This program provides states and territories with federal dollars to support conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered and in need of protection under the Endangered Species Act. The SWG program represents an ambitious endeavor to take a proactive role in keeping species from becoming threatened or endangered in the future.According to the SWG program, each state or territory and the District of Columbia must have completed a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (CWCS) by October 1, 2005, to receive future funding.These strategies will help defi ne an integrated approach to the stewardship of all wildlife species, with additional emphasis on species of concern and habitats at risk. The goal is to shift focus from single-species management and highly specialized individual efforts to a geographically based, landscape-oriented, fi sh and wildlife conservation effort. The Service approves CWCSs and administers SWG program funding.The CWCS for the state of Wyoming was reviewed and information therein was used during the development of the CCP. Implementation of CCP habitat goals and objectives will support the goals and objectives of the CWCS.
1.5 ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND THREATS
Pathfi nder NWR is located within the Platte–Kansas Rivers ecosystem, which includes almost all of Nebraska, southeast Wyoming, northeast Colorado, and northern Kansas (fi gure 3). The ecosystem is home to the Nebraska Sandhills, the largest sand dune complex in the western hemisphere. This area and many others provide vital habitat for numerous threatened and endangered wildlife and plant species.
The ecosystem spans from snow-capped, barren mountain peaks in Colorado to lowland riparian cottonwood forests along the Missouri River in eastern Nebraska and Kansas. The mountainous regions are predominately a mixture of coniferous forests comprised of Douglas fi r, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, Engelman spruce, and subalpine fi r. Pinyon pine, juniper woodlands, and aspen communities are also common throughout. At high elevation, alpine meadows and lakes, willow shrublands, and barren, rocky areas are frequently found. Forests generally transition into shrub communities dominated by sagebrush with short grasses and forbs in eastern Wyoming and western Nebraska. Farther to the east, trees give way to short-grass prairie dominated by buffalo grass, blue gramma, hairy gramma, and western wheatgrass. The short-grass prairie turns into mixed-grass prairie in central Nebraska and Kansas, due primarily to greater annual rainfall.Threats to the Platte–Kansas Rivers ecosystem that require attention include overgrazing of land, invasive plants, population growth and housing development, and groundwater and surface-water depletion. To overcome these threats, the priorities for the ecosystem will be to ensure that natural, healthy ecological processes dominate and that economic development complements environmental protection.
1.6 THE PLANNING PROCESS
This draft CCP and the EA for Pathfi nder NWR is intended to comply with the Improvement Act and the NEPA as well as the implementing regulations of the acts. The Service issued its Refuge System planning policy in 2000, which established requirements and guidance for refuge plans—including CCPs and step-down management plans—to ensure that planning efforts comply with the Improvement Act. The planning policy identifi ed several steps of the CCP and environmental analysis process (see fi gure 4). Table 1 displays the planning process to date for this draft CCP and EA. The Service began the preplanning process in January 2006. The planning team consists of Service personnel from various programs including refuge planning, education and visitor services, and ecological services, as well as representatives from the BLM, Reclamation, and WGFD (appendix B). During preplanning, the team developed a mailing list, internal issues, and a special qualities list. The planning team identifi ed current refuge program status, compiled and analyzed relevant data, and determined the purpose of the refuge. Over the course of preplanning and scoping (the process of obtaining information from the public for input into the planning process), the planning team collected available information about the resources Chapter 1 — Introduction 7
Map of the Platte-Kansas rivers ecosystem, showing dam locations.8 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
of the refuge and the surrounding areas. Chapter 4 summarizes this information.The draft CCP (chapter 6) outlines long-term guidance for management decisions; sets forth proposed objectives and strategies to accomplish refuge purposes and meet goals; and identifi es the Service’s best estimate of future needs.The draft CCP details program levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning purposes.A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the draft CCP and EA was published in the “Federal Register” on June 16, 2006. Public scoping began in May 2006 with public meetings in Casper and Laramie, Wyoming.
Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.
COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC
The Service held two public scoping meetings in May 2006 (see table 1 for details) announced by the local media. During the public meetings, a description of the CCP and NEPA process was provided. Participants were asked to provide suggestions on the scope of issues to be considered in the planning process, and comments were recorded and entered in the planning record. Attendees were encouraged to
ask questions and offer comments; each attendee was given a comment form to submit additional thoughts or questions in writing.Approximately 51 people attended the public meetings. Attendees included local citizens and members of the Audubon Wyoming, the Wyoming Outdoor Council, and Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.Written comments were due July 17, 2006. A total of 70 written comments were received throughout the scoping process. Input obtained from meetings and correspondence including email was considered in development of this draft CCP and EA.A mailing list of more than 148 contacts includes private citizens; local, regional, and state government representatives and legislators; other federal agencies; and interested organizations (appendix C).In September 2006, the fi rst planning update was sent to everyone on the mailing list. Information was provided on the history of the refuge and the CCP process, along with an invitation to share ideas regarding refuge management with the planning team. Each planning update included a comment form and postage-paid envelope to give the public an opportunity to provide written comments.Chapter 1 — Introduction 9
Table 1. Planning process summary for Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming.
Date
Event
Outcome
January–March 2006
Preplanning.
CCP overview; established planning team;
identifi ed purpose of the refuge, history, and
establishing authority; developed planning schedule
and CCP mailing list.
April 27, 2006
Kickoff meeting.
Toured refuge; conducted internal scoping by
developing issues and qualities list for the refuge;
identifi ed biological and mapping needs; developed a
vision statement for the refuge.
May 8, 2006
News release for public
Notifi ed public of opportunities for involvement in
meeting sent to Wyoming
the CCP process.
media contacts.
May 24, 2006
Public meeting in Casper,
Opportunity for the public to learn about the CCP
WY.
and offer suggestions on the scope of issues to be
considered in the planning process.
May 25, 2006
Public meeting in Laramie,
Opportunity for the public to learn about the CCP
WY.
and offer suggestions on the scope of issues to be
considered in the planning process.
June 16, 2006
NOI (to prepare the CCP)
Notifi ed the public of the intention to prepare a
published in the “Federal
CCP and EA for Pathfi nder NWR.
Register.”
August 31, 2006
Goals and alternatives
Goals developed; alternatives discussed.
workshop.
September 2006
Planning update distributed
Planning update (describing CCP process and
to CCP mailing list.
providing opportunity for public suggestions on
the scope of issues to be considered in the planning
process).
January 25, 2007
Environmental consequences
Reviewed the anticipated environmental
workshop and identifi cation
consequences; identifi ed alternative C as the
of the proposed action.
proposed action.
Spring 2008
Internal review of the draft
Received comments on the draft CCP and EA.
CCP and EA.
Summer 2008
Release of draft CCP and EA
Draft CCP and EA presented to the public;
for public review.
received comments on the draft CCP and EA.
Summer 2008
Public meeting in Casper,
Increased public understanding of the draft CCP
WY.
and EA; received public comments about the draft
CCP and EA.
STATE COORDINATION
On January 27, 2006, an invitation letter to participate in the CCP process was sent by the Service’s region 6 director to the director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Two representatives from the WGFD are part of the CCP planning team. Local WGFD wildlife biologists and the refuge staff had established excellent and ongoing working relations before starting the CCP process.The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is charged with providing “an adequate and fl exible system for the control, management, protection,
and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife.” The WGFD maintains 36 Wildlife Habitat Management Areas and 96 Public Access Areas, encompassing 410,000 acres of managed lands for wildlife habitat and public recreation opportunity. These lands contain 121 miles of stream easements and about 21,014 surface acres of lakes and reservoirs for public access (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2006).
TRIBAL COORDINATION
On October 17, 2006, fi ve Native American tribal governments (Arapaho, Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Oglala Sioux, and Shoshone) were contacted through a letter signed by Service’s region 6 director. With 10 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
information about the upcoming CCP, the letter invited tribal recipients to serve on the planning team. Although Native American tribal governments did not express interest in participating on the planning team, the tribal governments remain on the CCP mailing list and will continue to receive CCP correspondence (planning updates, draft CCP and EA, fi nal CCP) and will be given an opportunity to comment on the draft CCP and EA documents.
RESULTS OF SCOPING
Table 1 summarizes all scoping activities. Comments collected from scoping meetings and correspondence, including comment forms, were used in the development of a fi nal list of issues to be addressed in this draft CCP and EA.The Service determined which alternatives could best address these issues. The planning process ensures that issues with the greatest affect on the refuge are resolved or given priority over the life of the fi nal CCP. Identifi ed issues, along with a discussion of effects on resources, are summarized in chapter 2.In addition, the Service considered suggested changes to current refuge management presented by the public and other groups. 2 The Refuge
Northern pintail
USFWS
The Pathfi nder Wildlife Refuge (later renamed the “Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge”) was established by executive order (EO) in 1909. The refuge’s boundaries have been modifi ed several times since its establishment. The present-day refuge comprises four separate units—Sweetwater Arm, Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek—totaling 16,806 acres (fi gure 5).
2.1 ESTABLISHMENT, ACQUISITION, AND MANAGEMENT HISTORY
The origins of present-day Pathfi nder NWR can be traced to June 17, 1902, when Congress authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to build the Pathfi nder Dam and Reservoir in central Wyoming. When dam construction was completed in 1909, the refuge was established on the reservoir as an overlay refuge on Reclamation lands. As such, lands and waters are under the primary jurisdiction of Reclamation, and the refuge purpose is superimposed as a secondary interest in the property. Primary administration is retained by Reclamation, the host agency. Wildlife management must be compatible with those uses for which the primary agency acquired the land.Below is a summary of the legislation that has shaped the refuge over the years:
􀁒􅈠 EO 1032 (February 25, 1909)—established Pathfi nder Wildlife Refuge on the Pathfi nder Reservoir site “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.”􀁒􅈠 EO 3725 (August 18, 1922)—revoked that part of EO 1032 reserving the Pathfi nder Reservoir site for use “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” 􀁒􅈠 EO 4860 (April 19, 1928)—reestablished the area created by EO 1032 “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.”􀁒􅈠 EO 7425 (August 1, 1936)—established the present refuge and designated it “as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and other wildlife.”􀁒􅈠 EO 8296 (November 30, 1939)—changed the refuge name from “Pathfi nder Wildlife Refuge” to “Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge.” Primary jurisdiction of most of the refuge lands remains under Reclamation’s authority. Reclamation administers lands within the Pathfi nder Project boundary for North Platte Project purposes including fl ood control, irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) specifi es the management responsibilities of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (BSFW), 12 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
the Service’s predecessor, while preserving the autonomy of Reclamation to manage Pathfi nder Dam and Reservoir (see appendix D).The North Platte Project is a 111-mile irrigation project stretching along the North Platte River Valley from Guernsey, Wyoming, to Bridgeport, Nebraska (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation [USBR]). The project provides full-service irrigation for about 226,000 acres and supplemental irrigation service for a combined area of roughly 109,000 acres. The project includes fi ve storage dams, four diversion dams, a pumping plant, and a power plant, as well as about 2,000 miles of canals, laterals, and drains.Many mountain streams rising in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and Wyoming feed the North Platte River. Its waters are stored and used for irrigation and power development for the North Platte Project and related projects. These projects’ storage structures require close operational coordination, which is further complicated by various agreements and laws governing water rights. Before reaching the Pathfi nder Reservoir, the North Platte River waters pass through the Seminoe and Kortes dams, where they are joined by waters from the Sweetwater River. Pathfi nder Reservoir holds much of the North Platte Project water, with a storage capacity of 1,016,000 acre-feet. A small amount of water is released during the nonirrigation season to satisfy other water rights, enhance fi sh and wildlife, and operate power plants downstream, and during the irrigation season, water is released as required.Pathfi nder Dam is located about 3 miles below the North Platte River’s junction with the Sweetwater River.In the 1960s, the BSFW became increasingly concerned with the decline in waterfowl use of the reservoir. This decline was attributed to various ecological changes resulting from Reclamation activities, particularly water manipulation. Recreational activities were also increasing, and the trend was expected to continue. The BSFW concluded that developing and intensively managing only areas that had existing and potential waterfowl attraction would better benefi t wildlife than continuing extensive management of the entire area. To this effect, various memorandums of agreement and understanding were signed with Reclamation and other agencies that oversee lands on the Pathfi nder Reservoir:􀁒􅈠 February 12, 1963—a proposal was made to limit the boundary of Pathfi nder NWR to include only the Sweetwater Arm Unit and three small areas (Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek units) designated for waterfowl production on the main body of the reservoir.
􀁒􅈠 May 20, 1963—the proposal was approved in a memorandum to the BSFW’s regional director of the division of technical services.􀁒􅈠 May 19, 1964—the proposal was carried out through partial revocation of EO 7425, which deleted 31,545 acres from the refuge. 􀁒􅈠 May 26, 1964—an MOU was signed between Reclamation and the BSFW (contract #14-06-700-4605), allowing the latter to manage land and water areas, including grazing, recreation, and related uses, for the conservation of wildlife resources (appendix D). 􀁒􅈠 September 10, 1964—the BSFW submitted an application to the BLM for the withdrawal of lands from the BLM to add 1,971.97 acres to Pathfi nder NWR. The withdrawal of 1,574.84 acres of land was completed November 4, 1964, and serial number Wyoming 0311814 was assigned. 􀁒􅈠 May 7, 1965—Public Land Order 3657 placed 2,554 acres of public land under the primary responsibility of the BSFW through a realignment of the refuge boundary. 􀁒􅈠 November 16, 1965—an MOA (contract #14-06-700-4737) between Reclamation, the BLM, and the BSFW transferred administration of the grazing program to the BLM. ��􅈠 May 19, 1966—an MOU (contract #14-06-700-4749) between Reclamation, the Natrona County Commissioners, and the BSFW was established concerning the administration and development of land and facilities at Alcova, Pathfi nder, and Grays Reef reservoirs for recreational purposes. 􀁒􅈠 May 19, 1991—an MOU (contract # 1-AG-60-01340) between Reclamation and Natrona County replaced the MOU dated May 19, 1966. The area at Pathfi nder NWR covered by this MOU is the Bishops Point Recreation Area in the Sweetwater Arm Unit. These recreational lands are currently within the refuge’s boundary and therefore are subject to the Service’s appropriate use and compatibility policies.
2.2 SPECIAL VALUES OF THE REFUGE
Early in the planning process, the planning team and public identifi ed the outstanding qualities of Pathfi nder NWR, the characteristics and features that make it special to people, valuable for wildlife, and worthy of refuge status. Identifying these values at the outset helps ensure they will be preserved, protected, and enhanced throughout the planning process. Refuge qualities can range from providing a unique biological habitat for wildlife to offering visitors a quiet place to observe a variety of birds and enjoy nature. The following summarizes the qualities that make portions of the refuge unique and valued.Chapter 2 — The Refuge 13
Line drawing of American avocets.Line drawing of American avocets. Line drawing of American avocets.
Wildlife and Habitat
􀁒􅉆Forty species of waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds use the refuge for migration and nesting including mountain plover, phalarope, avocet, redhead duck, and scaup.􀁒􅉔The Steamboat Lake area of the Sweetwater Arm Unit provides important feeding and nesting habitat for waterfowl and other migratory bird species. 􀁒􅉔The refuge contains a large body of water in a semiarid environment that provides resting habitat for migratory birds.􀁒􅉕Uplands sagebrush habitat on the refuge supports sage-grouse, antelope, and other sage-obligate species. 􀁒􅉔The Sweetwater Arm Unit contains at least onesage-grouse lek, and likely early brood-rearing habitat.􀁒􅉔The refuge is designated an “Important Bird Area” (Audubon Wyoming).􀁒􅉁A state-listed rare plant, slender spiderfl ower, is present in the Sweetwater Arm Unit of the refuge. 􀁒􅉔The potential exists to form partnerships with other agencies and with private landowners in the area who are interested in maintaining and improving the refuge’s natural resources. 􀁒􅉃Currently, there is little pressure for development near the refuge.
Public Use
􀁒􅉔The refuge provides a variety of public recreation including the six priority public uses of the Refuge System (hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation).
􀁒􅉔The Steamboat Lake area of the refuge provides excellent wildlife observation and interpretation opportunities. 􀁒􅉔The Oregon Trail and Independence Rock offer opportunities to showcase the refuge to the public. 􀁒􅉔The refuge offers visitors open space and the opportunity to experience solitude in an aesthetically pleasing environment.
2.3 PURPOSE
Every refuge is established for a purpose. This purpose is the foundation upon which to build all refuge programs, from biology and public use to maintenance and facilities. No action that the Service or public takes may confl ict with this refuge purpose. The refuge purpose is found in the legislative acts or administrative orders, which are the authorities to either transfer or acquire a piece of land for a refuge. Over time an individual refuge may contain lands that have been acquired under a variety of transfer and acquisition authorities, giving it more than one purpose. The goals, objectives, and strategies identifi ed in the CCP are intended to support the individual purpose for which the refuge was established.As stated in EO 7425, the purpose of Pathfi nder NWR is “as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and other wildlife.”
2.4 VISION
At the beginning of the planning process, the Service developed a vision for Pathfi nder NWR. A vision describes what will be different in the future as a result of the CCP and is the essence of what the Service is trying to accomplish at the refuge. The vision is a future-oriented statement designed to be achieved through refuge management by the end of the 15-year CCP planning horizon. The vision for Pathfi nder NWR is the following.
Pathfi nder Reservoir and surrounding public lands supply life-cycle needs for a multitude of wildlife adapted to this semiarid region of central Wyoming. The wetland complexes, upland sagebrush habitats, and open waters of the reservoir provide feeding, breeding, staging, resting, and nesting areas for migratory birds and resident wildlife. Management decisions will be directed toward maintaining or improving wildlife habitat values. Appropriate public use opportunities will be identifi ed, and provided where possible.14 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Map showing topography and location of the refuge. Map showing topography and location of the refuge.Map showing topography and location of the refuge.Chapter 2 — The Refuge 15
2.5 GOALS
The Service also developed a set of goals for the refuge based on the Improvement Act, the refuge purpose, and information developed during project planning. The goals direct work toward achieving the vision and purpose of the refuge and outline approaches for managing refuge resources. The following fi ve goals were identifi ed for Pathfi nder NWR.
Natural Resources Goal
Conserve the ecological diversity of uplands and wetlands to support healthy populations of native wildlife, with an emphasis on migratory birds.
Visitor Services Goal
Provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities to a diverse audience when the administration of these programs does not adversely affect habitat management objectives.
Partnerships Goal
Work with partners to support healthy populations ofnative wildlife and to increase the understanding of wildlife needs as well as the benefi ts wildlife offer to local communities.
Cultural Resources Goal
Identify and evaluate the cultural resources on the refuge and protect those that are determined to be signifi cant.
Administrative Goal
Obtain administrative capabilities that will result in effi cient strategies to manage the landscape to achieve habitat and public management goals.
2.6 PLANNING ISSUES
Several key issues were identifi ed following the analysis of comments collected from refuge staff and the public, as well as a review of the requirements of the Improvement Act and the NEPA. Substantive comments (those that could be addressed within the authority and management capabilities of the Service) were considered during the formulation of the alternatives for future management. These key issues for Pathfi nder NWR are summarized below.
Refuge Management
Pathfi nder NWR is part of the Arapaho NWR Complex. Refuge staff are headquartered near Walden, Colorado, approximately a four-hour drive from the refuge. The complex’s small staff size (four full-time employees), limited resources, and remote headquarters create management challenges for the refuge, including a lack of day-to-day oversight and minimal opportunities for law enforcement. Degrading infrastructure (specifi cally, roads, fences,
and signs) and litter occur on the refuge due to lack of active management. Management of Pathfi nder Reservoir and refuge lands by multiple agencies creates additional management challenges. The Service currently has memorandums of agreement and understanding with a number of agencies in the Casper region including Reclamation, BLM, WGFD, and Natrona County. Reclamation has a withdrawal on Pathfi nder Reservoir project lands to support project purposes (i.e., fl ood control, irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation). The Service has a withdrawal on refuge lands for wildlife management purposes. The roles and responsibilities of each agency should be clearly defi ned, evaluated, and simplifi ed where possible during the CCP planning process.
Refuge Uses
Refuge uses (grazing and recreation) need to be evaluated to ensure existing and proposed uses are compatible with the purpose of the refuge and mission of the Refuge System. Refuge uses have not been actively evaluated over time due to minimal staff presence. Through the development of this CCP, refuge uses and management activities will be evaluated to ensure the best, most informed decisions are made for proper management of refuge lands. For a use to be deemed compatible, appropriate staff and resources must be available to manage the use.
Water Resources
Water and water availability are vital in semiarid regions. The Service does not own water rights for the refuge, which can result in poor wildlife habitat for trust species.
Water Level Fluctuation
During the past 20 years the average fl uctuation of the reservoir water level was 20 feet per year with a range of 8–40 feet, resulting in a lack of shoreline vegetation and food source for migratory birds and nesting cover for waterfowl. The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for managing reservoir water levels.
Separated Land Parcels
The refuge consists of four separate units. Separated land parcels are generally more diffi cult to access and manage than contiguous parcels of land, and generally of less value to wildlife.
Invasive Species
Invasive species are a threat to quality habitat. If not contained early, they can also drain resources. Tamarisk and Canada thistle have been identifi ed on the refuge. An increase in monitoring, management, and control of these and other invasive species is needed.16 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Research and Science
The Service needs to obtain good baseline data for the refuge. Monitoring programs need to be implemented for species that use the refuge. Audubon Wyoming could be a partner in gathering quality research data on the refuge.
Partnerships
Cooperation with other agencies is needed to address issues of common concern. Opportunities for the public to assist in the protection and management of the refuge should be identifi ed and provided. Local conservation groups could help raise funds for the refuge either directly or by lobbying state and federal representatives.
Staffi ng
The refuge should be managed by Service staff stationed in Wyoming. This issue was raised frequently in public meetings. The managing staff is currently headquartered at Arapaho NWR in Walden, Colorado, a four-hour drive from the refuge. The remote location of staff prevents active, consistent oversight of the refuge.
3 Alternatives
Pricklypear
Bob Hines /USFWS
This chapter describes the management alternatives considered for Pathfi nder NWR. Alternatives are different approaches to planning unit management designed to achieve:􀁒􅈠 the refuge’s purpose, vision, and goals􀁒􅈠 the mission of the Refuge System􀁒􅈠 the mission of the Service
3.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
Alternatives are formulated to address the signifi cant issues, concerns, and problems identifi ed by the Service, the public, and the governmental partners during public scoping and throughout the development of the draft plan.This chapter contains the following sections:􀁒􅈠 elements common to all alternatives􀁒􅈠 description of alternatives􀁒􅈠 summary of alternatives and environmental consequences (table 2)
This chapter describes three management alternatives that represent different approaches to enhance protection and restoration of fi sh, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources. Alternative A, the no-action alternative, describes ongoing refuge management. The no-action alternative is a basis of comparison with alternatives B and C. Alternative C is the Service’s proposed action and basis for the draft CCP (chapter 6).The planning team assessed biological conditions and external relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed to the development of alternatives, each of which presents a unique approach for addressing long-term goals. Each alternative was evaluated based on expected progress in meeting the vision and goals of the refuge and how it would address core wildlife and habitat issues and threats. Where data are available, trends in habitat and wildlife are evaluated, and the environmental consequences of each alternative are projected.18 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED
No alternatives were considered but eliminated during the planning process.
3.3 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
Several elements of refuge management are common to all alternatives. Management activities that could affect natural, archaeological, and historical resources would comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.All alternatives would provide equal protection and management of cultural resources. Individual projects may require additional consultation with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Offi ce. Additional consultation, surveys, and clearance may be required when activities could affect properties eligible for the National Historic Register.
3.4 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Management actions to advance the mission of the Refuge System and the purpose and vision of Pathfi nder NWR are summarized below. The alternatives refl ect options to address signifi cant threats, problems, and issues raised by public agencies, private citizens, and interested organizations.Each alternative differs in its ability to achieve long-term wildlife and habitat goals. However, each is similar in its approach to managing the refuge. Each alternative􀁒􅈠 would pursue the goals outlined in chapter 2;􀁒􅈠 would be consistent with the purpose of the refuge and with the mission and goals of the Refuge System.The focus and actions for each of alternatives A–C are described below.
ALTERNATIVE A—CURRENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (NO ACTION)
Alternative A, the no-action alternative, refl ects the current management of Pathfi nder NWR. It provides the baseline against which to compare other alternatives. It is also a requirement of the NEPA that a no-action alternative is addressed in the planning process.The no-action or current management alternative should not be interpreted to mean no change in refuge management. National wildlife refuges are required to be managed in compliance with Refuge System laws, regulations, and policies. The CCP
process provides an opportunity to review and update current refuge management to comply with Refuge System laws, regulations, and policies. Under alternative A, management activity being conducted by the Service would remain the same. The Service would not develop any new management, research, restoration, education, or visitor services programs at the refuge. Current habitat and wildlife practices benefi ting migratory bird species and other wildlife would not be expanded or changed. No new funding or staff levels would occur and programs would continue to follow the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as they do at present.
Refuge Administration
The Bureau of Reclamation would continue to administer lands within the Pathfi nder Project boundary. The Service would continue to manage the area within the refuge boundary as a national wildlife refuge in accordance with the MOU between Reclamation and the Service (appendix D). Management agreements would be reviewed to provide a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each party.
Refuge Uses
Existing refuge uses would be evaluated to determine if the use is appropriate on a refuge (appendix E). If the use is found to be appropriate, a compatibility determination would be made before the use is allowed to occur on the refuge (appendix F).
Line drawing of ground squirrel. Line drawing of ground squirrel.Chapter 3 — Alternatives 19
Habitat Management
Reservoir (Deepwater)
Reclamation would continue to manage the water levels of the Pathfi nder Reservoir. The Service would continue to own no water rights and have no control over the reservoir water level.
Wetlands and Riparian Areas
No management of refuge wetlands would occur due to the Service’s lack of water rights and limited infrastructure. Riparian habitats and wetlands in the Steamboat Lake area of the Sweetwater Arm Unit and Goose Bay Unit would continue to receive water based on natural runoff and hydrological processes.
Uplands
Uplands habitat management would continue to consist of grazing the refuge in conjunction with adjacent BLM grazing allotments. The grazing program would continue to be administered by the BLM through an MOA between the Service and the BLM. The lack of boundary fencing on the refuge would continue to prohibit management of the grazing program to Service standards. An evaluation of upland habitat conditions would assist refuge staff in determining appropriate grazing program as a habitat management tool. Current stocking rates, duration, seasons, and so forth would continue until data analysis indicates further management direction.
Threatened and Endangered Species and State Species of Concern
Management for threatened and endangered species and state species of concern would occur if they were discovered on the refuge. At the present time, no known threatened or endangered species or state species of concern use Pathfi nder NWR.
Invasive Species
Monitoring and management of invasive species would continue at present levels with no active monitoring of invasive species occurring.
Visitor Services
Public use of the refuge would be evaluated to determine appropriate uses under the guidelines established in the Service’s appropriate uses and compatibility policies. Five of the six wildlife-dependent public uses (hunting, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) would be maintained and encouraged to the extent possible. The sixth use, fi shing, is not allowed on the refuge.
Hunting
All four units of the refuge would remain open to hunting of ducks, coots, mergansers, deer, and pronghorn in accordance with dates and regulations established by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. WGFD would assist with law enforcement activities related to hunting regulations on the refuge.
Fishing
The refuge is closed to fi shing and would remain closed to fi shing.
Wildlife Observation, Photography, EnvironmentalEducation, and Interpretation
The refuge would continue to provide wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation opportunities. The Service would continue to partner with Audubon Wyoming to maintain the interpretive site off Highway 220 at the Sweetwater Arm Unit. Audubon Wyoming would continue to use the site for environmental education purposes.
Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation
Existing and proposed nonwildlife-dependent recreational uses such as picnicking, camping, water sports, motorboating, and sailing would be evaluated for appropriateness and compatibility with the purpose of the refuge. Uses that are found to be inappropriate or incompatible would be modifi ed or eliminated.
Research and Science
Refuge staff would not conduct research on the refuge. Data collection would continue to be opportunistic in nature and performed mainly by other entities.
Partnerships
Existing refuge partnerships would be maintained, but no new partnerships would be developed or pursued. Refuge staff would continue to work with Audubon Wyoming toward the goals of habitat protection and restoration, public education and awareness, and data collection at the refuge.
Operations
The refuge would continue to be managed by Service staff headquartered at the Arapaho NWR near Walden, Colorado.
ALTERNATIVE B—ENHANCED REFUGE MANAGEMENT
Under Alternative B, refuge management activities would be increased and enhanced. Refuge habitats 20 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
would be actively managed to achieve refuge goals and objectives. Refuge staff would strive to better understand the effects of management actions on the refuge. An emphasis on adaptive management, including monitoring the effects of habitat management practices and use of the research resultsto direct ongoing management, would be a priority. Partnerships would be essential to accomplish these actions.
Refuge Administration
Management agreements would be reviewed and updated, where appropriate, to provide a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each party. Refuge staff would investigate potential land exchanges with other agencies to block out the refuge boundary.
Refuge Uses
Proposed uses on refuge lands would be evaluated to determine if the use is appropriate on a refuge (appendix E). If the use is found to be appropriate, a compatibility determination would be made before the use is allowed to occur on the refuge (appendix F). Nonwildlife-dependent recreational uses would not be permitted on the refuge.
Habitat ManagementReservoir (Deepwater)
Reclamation would continue to manage the water levels of Pathfi nder Reservoir. The Service would continue to own no water rights and have no control over the reservoir water level.
Wetlands and Riparian Areas
No management of refuge wetlands would occur due to the Service’s lack of water rights and limited infrastructure. Riparian habitats and wetlands in the Steamboat Lake area and Goose Bay units would continue to receive water based on natural runoff andhydrological processes.
Uplands
Refuge personnel would work with the BLM to evaluate the grazing program to ensure grazing regimes meet wildlife objectives. The existing MOA (contract #14-06-700-4737) between the Service and the BLM, whereby BLM administers grazing, would be reviewed by both agencies and amended as needed or revoked. Fencing and other infrastructure needed to facilitate a grazing program would be evaluated and addressed. Uplands management would continue to use grazing as a habitat management tool under special use permit. Refuge grazing programs (stocking rates, duration, and seasons) would be evaluated to determine whether grazing would be used as a habitat management
tool. Boundary fencing would be installed, where appropriate, to permit active management of the grazing program.The use of additional habitat management tools (e.g., prescribed fi re, mechanical, chemical) would be considered where appropriate.
Threatened and Endangered Species and State Species of Concern
Monitoring for the presence of threatened and endangered species and state species of concern on the refuge would be increased.
Invasive Species
Monitoring and management of invasive species on the refuge would be increased.
Visitor Services
The six priority wildlife-dependent public uses and supporting programs would be enhanced and expanded. A step-down management plan would be developed to address refuge access, circulation, facility, and infrastructure needs.
Hunting
All four units of the refuge would remain open to hunting of ducks, coots, mergansers, deer, and pronghorn in accordance with dates and regulations established by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. Hunting programs would be enhanced to provide a higher-quality hunt where possible.
Fishing
Refuge staff would consider opening the refuge to fi shing through the CFR process. A compatibility determination would be performed to ensure compliance with refuge goals and objectives. Boating would be controlled to minimize impacts to migratory bird species. Fishing would be permitted year-round in accordance with dates and regulations established by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, except where otherwise posted.
Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
Efforts to provide wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation opportunities on the refuge would be expanded. The interpretive overlook off Highway 220 in the Sweetwater Arm Unit would be maintained and enhanced. The Service would continue to partner with Audubon Wyoming to expand opportunities for these four uses on the refuge.
Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation
Nonwildlife-dependent recreational uses such as picnicking, camping, water sports, motorboating, and sailing would not be permitted on the refuge. Chapter 3 — Alternatives 21
Facilities and infrastructure that support these uses would be modifi ed or removed as expediently as possible.
Line drawing of mouse. Line drawing of mouse.
Research and Science
Baseline data for habitat and wildlife on the refuge would be acquired. Refuge staff would partner with universities and other entities to collect baseline data to identify refuge resources and obtain a better understanding of the effects of management activities.
Partnerships
Increased emphasis would be placed on maintaining existing and developing new partnerships to achieve refuge goals and objectives. Efforts would be increased to focus research-based partnerships on collecting baseline data for the refuge.
Operations
The refuge would be managed by Service staff headquartered at Arapaho NWR near Walden, Colorado. One additional full-time employee would be hired to perform increased management activities at Pathfi nder NWR and at three refuges located near Laramie known collectively as the “Laramie Plains refuges” (Bamforth, Hutton Lake, and Mortenson Lake). Additional funding would be required to fully implement the goals, objectives, and strategies described in this alternative.
ALTERNATIVE C—MODIFY REFUGE BOUNDARY (PROPOSED ACTION)
Under Alternative C, the refuge boundary would be modifi ed to remove areas from the refuge that provide minimal opportunity to improve wildlife habitat and are diffi cult to manage. Remaining refuge areas would be managed similar to those actions described in alternative B. Modifying the refuge’s boundary would enable the Service to focus efforts on manageable lands, thereby enhancing
refuge management and effi ciently directing refuge resources toward accomplishing the mission of the Refuge System.
History and Development of the Refuge
Pathfi nder Dam construction was completed in 1909. The dam created Pathfi nder Reservoir, the fi rst reservoir on the North Platte River. At the same time, Pathfi nder NWR was established as an overlay refuge on the reservoir. This large body of water was very attractive to waterbirds, as it was a unique feature along the North Platte River in Wyoming. From 1905 to 1924, over 2,000 miles of canals, laterals, and drains were dug across Wyoming and Nebraska. As these canals were completed, Reclamation initiated plans to build more dams along the North Platte River. Ultimately, a number of dams were built downstream of Pathfi nder Reservoir. Upstream dams were also built, and the waters of the North Platte River pass through Seminoe and Kortes dams before entering Pathfi nder Reservoir (Autobee 1996).In 1928, the Guernsey Dam and Power Plant were constructed, expanding the purpose of Pathfi nder Reservoir to include the generation of hydroelectric power. With the building of subsequent dams on the North Platte River, and the expanded use of Pathfi nder Reservoir, the Service’s ability to manage Pathfi nder NWR to benefi t migratory bird species was limited. A 1964 memorandum from the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to the Wyoming State Offi ce of the Bureau of Land Management indicates the issues and concerns regarding management of the refuge and the decision to delete lands from the refuge. Below is an excerpt from this memorandum: The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has become increasingly concerned with the decline in waterfowl use of the reservoir. This is attributed to various ecological changes resulting from Bureau of Reclamation activities, particularly water manipulation. Recreation pressure is also increasing and the trend is expected to continue. The popularity of this site for boating and fi shing has contributed to the dilemma.We have concluded that rather than continue extensive management of the entire area, it will be more worthwhile from a wildlife management viewpoint to develop and intensively manage only those portions that have existing and potential waterfowl attraction.In 1964, Pathfi nder NWR was reduced from 48,353 acres to 16,806 acres. Current refuge lands include the Sweetwater Arm, Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek units.22 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
The present-day refuge lands were thought to have either existing or potential waterbird habitat. A few years following the initial reduction in refuge lands, however, the BSFW discovered that it did not have water rights to pursue the development of waterbird habitat. The following excerpt from the refuge’s 1966 annual narrative report (BSFW) documents the BSFW’s efforts to acquire water rights for the development of shallow-water wetlands at Pathfi nderNWR:After several years of hesitant water development, all with the permission of the Bureau of Reclamation, which has primary use of the Pathfi nder [Reservoir] waters, an effort was made this year to determine if any water was legally available to our Bureau. On July 13, Messrs. Godby and Nitisahke(sp) of the Regional Offi ce and the refuge manager met in a special session with offi cials of the Bureau of Reclamation in their Denver offi ce to discuss our possible fi ling on apparently unclaimed waters. It had appeared that there were some old water rights which had fallen to disuse on the Sweetwater River and its tributary, Horse Creek. The refuge hopes lay in claiming these rights so that ponds and crops could be developed for waterfowl.It was fi nally brought to light at this meeting that there were no unclaimed waters, that the Bureau of Reclamation had purchased said waters and transferred them to the reservoir pool as project water for the users downstream, and that the Bureau of Reclamation never has any water rights, anyway, since they are purchased solely forthe water districts. It now appears that, unless an outside chance of drilling a legal deep well avails itself, we are left without hope of additional water development on the refuge. This about pulls the props out from under any extensive program plans we may have treasured in our minds. Since that time, development of the refuge units for water management purposes has been nonexistent. Further complications with water rights have arisen since the signing in July 1997 of the North Platte River Compact, a three-state agreement between Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming to provide water for the life-cycle needs of endangered species in the North Platte River system. Water must be delivered downstream to be in compliance with this compact, further infl uencing the signifi cant water fl uctuations at Pathfi nder Reservoir. The benefi ts to the endangered species downstream are vital, and the compact must be adhered to by the Service and the three states involved.
Areas to Be Removed from the Refuge
The areas that would be removed from the refuge include the eastern half of the Sweetwater Arm Unit and the Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek units in their entirety. These areas would remain in federal ownership under the administrative jurisdiction of Reclamation or the BLM. Areas within the Reclamation Pathfi nder Project boundary would be managed by the Reclamation or its designee, and areas outside the project boundary would be returned to the public domain administered by the BLM (fi gure 6).
Sweetwater Arm Unit (eastern half)
While the large open water areas of the reservoir provide resting habitat for migratory birds, reservoir levels affect habitat, and the Service has no control over the water management of the reservoir. These areas that fall outside the proposed refuge boundary would continue to provide resting habitat for migratory birds in the future without Service oversight and management. Due to the fl uctuations in reservoir water levels (fi gure 7) and the dry, sandy soils at Pathfi nder NWR, most of the wetland areas along the reservoir shoreline do not provide submergent or emergent vegetation for waterfowl and do not meet habitat requirements for trust species. These fl uctuations also impact the uplands in the eastern half of the Sweetwater Arm Unit. As shown in the photograph below of the area, these upland areas have little vegetation and are dominated by sandy soils, producing marginal habitat (at best) for upland-obligate species.
Sand deposits in the uplands in the eastern half of Sweetwater Arm Unit.
Mark Ely/USFWS
Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek Units
The Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek units of Pathfi nder NWR are small, isolated tracts of land located at the southern end of the Pathfi nder Chapter 3 — Alternatives 23
Topographic map showing areas to be retained and removed from the refuge. Topographic map showing areas to be retained and removed from the refuge.Topographic map showing areas to be retained and removed from the refuge.24 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Reservoir. These tracts are 1,120 acres, 1,120 acres, and 1,520 acres, respectively. They consist primarily of sagebrush, with this habitat type occurring on 838 acres, 665 acres, and 1,207 acres, respectively. Adjacent lands consist primarily of similar sagebrush upland habitat managed by the BLM.The Goose Bay unit has 3–4 wetland areas that appear to be spring fed. The Deweese Creek Unit is adjacent to a number of alkaline wetlands. The North Platte River and Sage Creek bisect the Sage Creek Unit.All four units are heavily infl uenced by reservoir operations. Reservoir water-level fl uctuations can be such that refuge lands are rendered dry, with a stretch of sandy shoreline abutting greasewood, rock, and sage uplands.
Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.
Refuge Administration
Areas that remain within the refuge boundary would continue to be managed by the Service in accordance with the MOU between Reclamation and the Service that established roles and responsibilities for each agency (appendix D). Refuge lands would be roughly defi ned by the area west of Horse Creek to the current west refuge boundary including the Steamboat Lake area, reservoir backwater areas, and the Sweetwater River section currently within the boundary of the Sweetwater Arm Unit. Areas east of this region are highly infl uenced by reservoir operations, thereby decreasing habitat quality for migratory birds.
Areas west of Horse Creek are less infl uenced by fl uctuating reservoir levels and do not contain steep cutbanks with blowing sand. The area of contiguous lands would be posted and managed as a national wildlife refuge, which would help promote the Service’s mission and rectify the situation of intermingled agency lands with little signage or fencing to delineate federal land ownership and allowed public uses. Management agreements would be reviewed and updated or terminated as appropriate to address management of remaining refuge lands. Refuge staff would investigate potential land exchanges with other agencies to round out the refuge boundary.
Refuge Uses
Existing uses on remaining refuge lands would be evaluated to determine if the use is appropriate on a refuge (appendix E). If the use is found to be appropriate, a compatibility determination would be made before the use is allowed to occur on the refuge (appendix F). Compatibility determinations for proposed refuge uses are included in this draft plan (appendixes G–J). If an existing use is not appropriate, it would be eliminated or modifi ed as expeditiously as practicable. Uses occurring on lands that are removed from the refuge boundary would not be subject to Service Chapter 3 — Alternatives 25
laws, regulations, and policies and may continue to occur under management by Reclamation and/or BLM or its respective designee.
Habitat ManagementReservoir (Deepwater)
Deep, open water outside the Service’s sphere of management would continue to provide resting habitat for migratory bird species and serve as resting habitat under management by Reclamation or its respective designee (that is, without a Service presence). Areas defi ned by steep, sandy cutbanks and infl uenced annually by water manipulations would be removed from the MOU between the Service and Reclamation (appendix D).
Wetlands and Riparian Areas
No management of refuge wetlands would occur due to lack of water rights and infrastructure. Riparian areas and wetlands in the Steamboat Lake area would continue to receive water based on natural runoff and hydrological processes.
Uplands
The existing MOA (contract #14-06-700-4737) between the Service and the BLM, whereby BLM administers grazing, would be reviewed by both agencies and amended as needed or revoked. Fencing and other infrastructure needed to facilitate a grazing program would be evaluated and addressed. Uplands management would continue to use grazing as a habitat management tool under special use permit. The grazing program (stocking rates, duration, and seasons) would be evaluated to determine appropriate grazing methods. Boundary fencing would be installed to permit active management of the grazing program.The use of additional habitat management tools (e.g., prescribed fi re, mechanical, chemical) would be considered where appropriate.
Threatened and Endangered Species and State Species of Concern
Monitoring for the presence of threatened and endangered species and state species of concern on the refuge would be increased.
Invasive Species
Monitoring and management of invasive species on the refuge would be increased.
Visitor ServicesHunting
The refuge would continue to be open to hunting of ducks, coots, mergansers, deer, and pronghorn in accordance with dates and regulations established by
the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. Hunting programs would be enhanced to provide a higher-quality hunt or expanded where possible.
Fishing
Refuge staff would consider opening the refuge to fi shing through the CFR process. A compatibility determination would be performed to ensure compliance with refuge goals and objectives. Boating would be controlled to minimize impacts to migratory bird species. Fishing would be permitted year-round in accordance with dates and regulations established by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, except where otherwise posted. Modifi cation of the refuge boundary may result in the loss of some fi shing habitat.
Wildlife Observation, Photography, EnvironmentalEducation, and Interpretation
Efforts to provide wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation opportunities on the refuge would be expanded. The interpretive overlook off Highway 220 in the Sweetwater Arm Unit would be maintained and enhanced. The Service would continue to partner with Audubon Wyoming to expand opportunities for these four uses on the refuge. With appropriate planning, this area could be used to educate the public on the differences between Reclamation, BLM, and Service lands and land management directives.
Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation
Nonwildlife-dependent recreation would not be permitted on the refuge.
Research and Science
Baseline data for habitat and wildlife on the refuge would be acquired. Refuge staff would partner with universities and other entities to collect baseline data to identify refuge resources and obtain a better understanding of the effects of management activities.
Partnerships
Regional offi ce and refuge staff would work with Reclamation, the BLM, Natrona County, and WGFD to accomplish refuge boundary modifi cation. The CCP would identify lands to be eliminated from the refuge boundary, and establish the process and timeline by which to complete the boundary modifi cation.Greater emphasis would be placed on maintaining existing and developing new partnerships to achieve refuge goals and objectives. Efforts would be increased to focus research-based partnerships on collecting baseline data for the refuge. 26 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Operations
The refuge would be managed by Service staff headquartered at the Arapaho NWR near Walden, Colorado. One additional full-time equivalent (FTE) would be hired to perform increased management activities at Pathfi nder NWR and the Laramie Plains refuges.
3.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Table 2 provides descriptions of management actions and environmental consequences by resource and use topics for each of the three alternatives.
Table 2. Comparison of management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming.
Alternative AAlternative C
(No Action)Alternative B(Proposed Action)
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION—Management Actionsions
Reclamation administers all Same as alternative A, plus Same as alternative B, except
lands within the Pathfi nder review, update, and/or terminate lands eliminated from refuge
Project boundary for project management agreements where boundary (the Goose Bay,
purposes (irrigation, fl ood control, appropriate. Deweese Creek, and Sage
hydroelectric power generation).Creek units and portions of the Investigate potential land Sweetwater Arm Unit) revert to The Service manages refuge lands exchanges with other agencies to prerefuge administrative status for wildlife purposes. round out the refuge boundary. (i.e., Reclamation, BLM).
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION—Environmental Consequences
Differing missions and overlaying Agency coordination would be Same as alternative B, except
responsibilities of managing improved and roles would be concentrating resources on
agencies (Reclamation, BLM, clarifi ed, resulting in improvement manageable lands would allow
Service) can hinder agencies’ of habitat conditions to support limited funds to be spent on
individual and combined migratory bird species. a smaller area that meets the
effectiveness at managing Service mission (quality migratory
lands and contribute to habitat and resident bird habitat).
degradation.
RESERVOIR (DEEPWATER) HABITAT—Management Actions
No management of reservoir Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.
water levels for migratory bird
species and other wildlife.
RESERVOIR (DEEPWATER) HABITAT—Environmental Consequences
The reservoir would continue Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.
to provide resting areas for
waterfowl and other migratory
bird species during spring and fall
migration. Emergent vegetation
along the shoreline of the
reservoir, which provides a food
source for migratory birds and
other wildlife, would be minimally
present due to fl uctuations
in water levels (20 ft/yr) and
resulting steep, sandy cutbanks
that prohibit vegetation growth.Chapter 3 — Alternatives 27
Table 2. Comparison of management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming.
Alternative AAlternative C
(No Action)Alternative B(Proposed Action)
WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN HABITAT—Management Actions
Provide playas and wetlands Increase efforts to monitor Same as alternative B.
for the benefi t of waterfowl, and manage refuge wetlands
shorebirds, and other migratory and riparian areas through
bird species.partnerships and other means.
The Service has no water
rights on the refuge, and North
Platte River depletion issues
preclude the acquisition of water
rights and/or development of
impoundments on the refuge.
WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN HABITAT—Environmental Consequences
Playas and impoundments
Same as alternative A, except
Same as alternative B, except
would continue to fi ll and dry as
by studying the wetland
Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and
natural processes dictate, with no
characteristics, refuge staff and
Sage Creek units would no longer
management actions to infl uence
partners could develop potential
be part of the refuge.
them.
management actions that may
Management actions for habitats
improve wetlands for the benefi t of waterfowl and waterbirds.
below the reservoir high water
line would be subject to the
impacts of inundation if the
reservoir water level rises.
Few options would exist for
effective habitat management on
wetland areas.
UPLANDS HABITAT—Management Actions
Graze uplands in conjunction
Evaluate effectiveness of grazing Same as alternative B.
with BLM allotments. BLM
program, and alter where
administers grazing program
necessary, to achieve refuge
through MOA.
objectives.
Consider other upland
management techniques (chemical,
mechanical, prescribed fi re).28 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Table 2. Comparison of management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming.
Alternative AAlternative C
(No Action)Alternative B(Proposed Action)
UPLANDS HABITAT—Environmental Consequences
Grazing would continue to occur
Increased monitoring and
Increased monitoring and
on adjacent BLM lands.
evaluation of grazing effects would
evaluation of grazing impacts
A lack of Service coordination
assist with management decisions.
would assist with management decisions.
with BLM would result in grazing
Some fencing would likely be
on the refuge that may not be
constructed in the Sweetwater
A smaller area (less refuge
compliant with refuge policy.
Arm Unit of the refuge. The
uplands) would need to be
Updating the grazing program
Goose Bay, Dewesse Creek and
managed.
may affect BLM permittees.
Sage Creek Units would likely remain unfenced due to the fact
Better ability to control and
Continued unanalyzed impacts from grazing could result in criticism that the Service is not appropriately managing lands in
that fencing small units may be detrimental to wildlife. Small, fenced parcels impede migration and animal movement.
implement grazing program per refuge policy due to a smaller geographical area and removal of isolated parcels from the refuge.
the Refuge System.
Grazing operations for BLM permittees may be affected.
Better ability to fence refuge areas (gentle slopes of backwater and riparian areas are better
Small, isolated parcels and areas
suited to fencing and posting).
with steep, sandy cutbanks would
remain diffi cult to manage for
grazing purposes.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND STATE SPECIES OF CONCERN—
Management Actions
Manage for threatened and
Same as alternative A, plus
Same as alternative B.
endangered species as discovered
increase monitoring for presence
on the refuge.
of threatened and endangered
species and state species of
concern.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND STATE SPECIES OF CONCERN—
Environmental Consequences
Federally listed species would
Same as alternative A, except
Same as alternative B.
be protected from intentional or
threatened and endangered
unintended impacts by banning or
species and state species of
modifying activities where these
concern would be detected sooner.
species occur.
Threatened and endangered
species and state species of
concern may be present on refuge
lands but would go undetected.
INVASIVE SPECIES—Management Actionsions
As funding is available, attempt
Increase efforts to monitor and
Same as alternative B.
to control invasive species in
control invasive species through
accordance with federal and state
partnerships and other means.
laws, policies, and guidelines.
Consider additional management
techniques (chemical, mechanical,
prescribed fi re).Chapter 3 — Alternatives 29
Table 2. Comparison of management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming.
Alternative AAlternative C
(No Action)Alternative B(Proposed Action)
INVASIVE SPECIES—Environmental Consequences
Management of invasive species Proactive approach by refuge Same as alternative B, except
would continue to be reactionary staff and partners to monitor eradication efforts would be
(addressed when problems for infestations and obtain the condensed, improving the
are identifi ed and as resources necessary resources would Service’s ability to eliminate or
permit). eradicate some invasive species control invasive species.
from the units and prevent ones Some invasive species may from becoming established.become established or expand.
VISITOR SERVICES, Hunting—Management Actionsions
Continue hunting program but
Same as alternative A, plus work
Same as alternative B.
review for compatibility.
with WGFD to evaluate and
enhance hunting program.
VISITOR SERVICES, Hunting—Environmental Consequences
Unlimited vehicle access wou

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Planand Environmental AssessmentPathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge
July 2008Prepared by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicePathfi nder National Wildlife Service, Region 6Division of Refuge PlanningPO Box 25486 DFCLakewood, CO 80225303/236 4365andRegion 6, Mountain-Prairie RegionDivision of Refuge Planning134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300Lakewood, CO 80228303/236 4305Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................................ i
Summary...................................................................................................................................................................... iv
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ......................................................................................................................... 11.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System ........................................................................ 31.3 National and Regional Mandates ....................................................................................................................... 41.4 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans ................................................................................. 41.5 Ecosystem Description and Threats .................................................................................................................. 61.6 The Planning Process .......................................................................................................................................... 6
2 The Refuge ................................................................................................................................................ 11
2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History ................................................................................ 112.2 Special Values of the Refuge ............................................................................................................................. 122.3 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................ 132.4 Vision .................................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.5 Goals ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.6 Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................................... 15
3 Alternatives .............................................................................................................................................. 17
3.1 Alternatives Development................................................................................................................................ 173.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ........................................................................................................ 18
3.3 Elements Common to All Alternatives............................................................................................................ 18
3.4 Description of Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 183.5 Comparison of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 26
4 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................................. 33
4.1 Physical Environment ....................................................................................................................................... 334.2 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 374.3 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 42
4.4 Special Management Areas ............................................................................................................................... 434.5 Visitor Services .................................................................................................................................................. 43
4.6 Partnerships ........................................................................................................................................................ 454.7 Socioeconomic Environment ............................................................................................................................. 45
4.8 Operations ........................................................................................................................................................... 46
5 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................... 49
5.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives ................................................................................................................
49
5.2 Description of Consequences by Alternative..................................................................................................5.3 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................................................................
50 56
6 Implementation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP) ......................................................................... 57
6.1 Identifi cation of the Proposed Action (Draft CCP)........................................................................................ 576.2 Summary of the Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................... 586.3 Draft CCP............................................................................................................................................................ 59
6.6 Staffi ng and Funding ......................................................................................................................................... 656.5 Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 656.5 Plan Amendment and Revision ......................................................................................................................... 65
Contents Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 67
Appendixes
A. Key Legislation and Policies ........................................................................................................................ 75
B. List of Preparers, Consultation, and Coordination ................................................................................... 79
C. Public Involvement ....................................................................................................................................... 81
D. Memorandum of Understanding...................................................................................................................83
E. Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy .................................................................................................................. 87
F. Compatibility Regulations ............................................................................................................................. 95
G. Draft Compatibility Determination for Hunting ..................................................................................... 107
H. Draft Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation and Photography ................................ 109
I. Draft Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation ..................... 111
J. Draft Compatibility Determination for Prescribed Grazing .................................................................. 113
K. Fire Management Program ......................................................................................................................... 115
L. List of Plant Species .................................................................................................................................... 119
M. List of Potentially Occurring Bird Species ............................................................................................... 123
N. List of Potentially Occurring Amphibian and Reptile Species ............................................................. 127
O. List of Potentially Occurring Mammal Species ........................................................................................ 129
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................. 131Figures and Tables
FIGURES
1 Vicinity map for Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming ............................................................................................... 2
2 Pathfi nder NWR is located in the Wyoming Basin, physiographic area 86 ............................................. 5
3 Platte–Kansas Rivers ecosystem. ................................................................................................................... 7
4 The planning process. ....................................................................................................................................... 8
5 Base map of Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming .................................................................................................... 14
6 Areas to Be Removed from Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming ......................................................................... 23
7 Pathfi nder Reservoir storage ........................................................................................................................ 24
8 Habitats at Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming ...................................................................................................... 38
9 Infrastructure and public use areas at Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming ....................................................... 44
10 Location of Pathfi nder NWR ......................................................................................................................... 45
11 Wyoming and study area population ............................................................................................................ 46
12 Study area age composition ........................................................................................................................... 47
13 Study area employment distribution, 200 .................................................................................................... 47
14 Draft CCP map of Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming .......................................................................................... 60
15 Proposed boundary of Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming ................................................................................... 61
16 The adaptive management process. .............................................................................................................. 66
TABLES
1 Planning process summary for Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming ...................................................................... 9
2 Comparison of management alternatives and environmental
consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming. ................................................. 26
3 Bureau of Reclamation irrigation rights for the Sweetwater
River and Horse Creek, Wyoming. ............................................................................................................... 36
4 Documented occurrences of vertebrate species of concern within
Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming. .......................................................................................................................... 42
5 Current staff for the Arapaho NWR Complex, Colorado. ........................................................................ 46
6 Step-down management plans for Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming. ............................................................. 66Abbreviations
Administration Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
BSFW
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
CCC
Civilian Conservation Corps
CCP
comprehensive conservation plan
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cfs
cubic feet per second
CRP
conservation reserve program
EA
environmental assessment
EO
executive order
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
FMP
fi re management plan
FONSI
fi nding of no signifi cant impact
FTE
full-time equivalent
GIS
geographic information system
GPS
global positioning system
GS
general schedule (employment)
Improvement Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
LPP
Land Protection Plan
NABCI
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
NAWMP
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
NAWCA
North American Wetlands Conservation Act
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NGO
nongovernmental organization
NOI
notice of intent
NWR
national wildlife refuge
NWRS
National Wildlife Refuge System
PFW
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Refuge System
National Wildlife Refuge System
Region 6
Mountain–Prairie Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
RONS
Refuge Operating Needs System
SAMMS
Service Asset Maintenance Management System
Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SUP
special use permit
SWG
State Wildlife Grant
TNC
The Nature Conservancy
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WG
wage grade (employment)
WGFD
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
WUI
wildland–urban interfaceSummary
Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming
Mark Ely/USFWS
This is a summary of the draft comprehensive conservation plan for the Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge in Carbon and Natrona counties, Wyoming. This plan, when approved, will guide management of the refuge for the next 15 years. Assessing the refuge’s ability to provide quality wildlife habitat for migratory bird species and actively managing the refuge to achieve this end, along with identifying and providing appropriate public uses on the refuge, were key factors driving the development of this plan.The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a comprehensive conservation plan by 2012 for each unit in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
THE REFUGE
Located in central Wyoming in a high plains basin near the headwaters of the “Platte–Kansas Rivers” ecosystem, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge lies approximately 47 miles southwest of the city of Casper. Pathfi nder Dam construction was completed in 1909, creating the fi rst reservoir on the North Platte River.At the same time, Pathfi nder Wildlife Refuge (later renamed “Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge”) was established as an overlay refuge on Bureau of
Reclamation lands on the reservoir. This large body of water was very attractive to waterbirds, and where the refuge once offered a unique environment in this semiarid region of Wyoming, the reservoir on which it is situated is now part of a larger system of reservoirs including Alcova to the north and Seminoe to the south. Major habitat types of Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge include open water wetlands, uplands consisting of shrub and grasslands, and alkali fl ats.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
The comprehensive conservation plan process consists of a series of steps including environmental analysis. Public and partner involvement are encouraged and valued throughout the process. Management alternatives are developed to meet the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge. Implementation of the fi nal comprehensive conservation plan will be monitored throughout its 15-year effective period.
ISSUES
Public scoping for the Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge initiated in May 2006, along with refuge information, identifi ed nine major areas of concern regarding management of the refuge.
Refuge Management
Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Refuge staff are headquartered near Walden, Colorado, approximately a four-hour drive from the refuge. The complex’s small staff size (four full-time employees), limited resources, and remote headquarters create management challenges for the refuge, including a lack of day-to-day oversight and minimal opportunities for law enforcement. Degrading infrastructure (specifi cally, roads, fences, and signs) and litter occur on the refuge due to lack of active management. Management of Pathfi nder Reservoir and refuge lands by multiple agencies creates additional management challenges. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently has memorandums of agreement and understanding with a number of agencies in the Casper region including the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and Natrona County. x Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
The Bureau of Reclamation has a withdrawal on Pathfi nder Reservoir project lands to support project purposes (i.e., fl ood control, irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a withdrawal on refuge lands for wildlife management purposes. The roles and responsibilities of each agency should be clearly defi ned, evaluated, and simplifi ed where possible during the comprehensive conservation plan process.
Refuge Uses
Refuge uses (grazing and recreation) need to be evaluated to ensure existing and proposed uses are compatible with the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Refuge uses have not been actively evaluated over time due to minimal staff presence. Through the development of this comprehensive conservation plan, refuge uses and management activities will be evaluated to ensure the best, most informed decisions are made for proper management of refuge lands. For a use to be deemed compatible, appropriate staff and resources must be available to manage the use.
Water Resources
Water and water availability are vital in semiarid regions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not own water rights for the refuge, which can result in poor wildlife habitat for trust species.
Water Level Fluctuation
During the past 20 years (from 1987 to 2007), the average fl uctuation of the reservoir water level was 20 feet per year with a range of 8–40 feet, resulting in a lack of shoreline vegetation and food source for migratory birds and nesting cover for waterfowl. The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for managing reservoir water levels.
Separated Land Parcels
The refuge consists of four separate units. Separated land parcels are generally more diffi cult to access and manage than contiguous parcels of land, and generally of less value to wildlife.
Invasive Species
Invasive species are a threat to quality habitat. If not contained early, they can also drain resources. Tamarisk and Canada thistle have been identifi ed on the refuge. An increase in monitoring, management, and control of these and other invasive species is needed.
Research and Science
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needs to obtain good baseline data for the refuge. Monitoring programs need to be implemented for species that use the refuge. Audubon Wyoming could be a partnerin gathering quality research data on the refuge.
Partnerships
Cooperation with other agencies is needed to address issues of common concern. Opportunities for the public to assist in the protection and management of the refuge should be identifi ed and provided. Local conservation groups could help raise funds for the refuge either directly or by lobbying state and federal representatives.
Staffi ng
The refuge should be managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff stationed in Wyoming. This issue was raised frequently in public meetings. The managing staff is currently headquartered at Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge in Walden, Colorado, approximately 240 miles away from the refuge. The remote location of staff prevents active, consistent oversight of the refuge.
THE FUTURE OF THE REFUGE
The issues, along with resource conditions, were important considerations during the development of the vision and goals for the refuge.
THE VISION OF THE REFUGE
The vision describes what the refuge will be and what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hopes to do, and is based primarily on the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and specifi c purposes of the refuge.
Pathfi nder Reservoir and surrounding public lands supply life-cycle needs for a multitude of wildlife adapted to this semiarid region of central Wyoming. The wetland complexes, upland sagebrush habitats, and open waters of the reservoir provide feeding, breeding, staging, resting, and nesting areas for migratory birds and resident wildlife. Management decisions will be directed toward maintaining or improving wildlife habitat values. Appropriate public use opportunities will be identifi ed, and provided where possible.
GOALS
The following goals were developed to meet the vision of the Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge.
Natural Resources Goal
Conserve the ecological diversity of uplands and wetlands to support healthy populations of native wildlife, with an emphasis on migratory birds. Summary xi
Visitor Services Goal
Provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities to a diverse audience when the administration of these programs does not adverselyaffect habitat management objectives.
Partnerships Goal
Work with partners to support healthy populations of native wildlife and to increase understanding of wildlife needs as well as the benefi ts wildlife offer tolocal communities.
Cultural Resources Goal
Identify and evaluate the cultural resources on the refuge and protect those that are determined to be signifi cant.
Administrative Goal
Obtain administrative capabilities that will result in effi cient strategies to manage the landscape to achieve habitat and public management goals.
ALTERNATIVES
The planning team developed the following three alternatives as management options for addressing the key issues.
Alternative A—Current Management (No Action)
This no-action alternative refl ects the current management of the Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge. It provides the baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. Refuge habitats would continue to be minimally managed on an opportunistic schedule that may maintain—or most likely would result in further decline in—the diversity of vegetation and wildlife species. Only limited data collection and monitoring of habitats and wildlife species would occur on the refuge. Outreach and partnerships would continue at present minimal levels.
Alternative B—Enhanced Refuge Management
Management activities under alternative B would be increased. Upland habitats would be evaluated and managed for the benefi t of migratory bird species. Monitoring and management of invasive species on the refuge would be increased. With additional staffi ng, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would collect baseline biological information for wildlife and habitats. Wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities would be provided and enhanced where compatible with refuge purposes. Efforts would be increased in the operations and maintenance of natural resources on the refuge and to maintain and develop partnerships that promote wildlife and habitat research and management.
Alternative C—Modify Refuge Boundary (Proposed Action)
Alternative C is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed action and basis for the draft comprehensive conservation plan. Under Alternative C, the refuge boundary would be modifi ed to remove areas from the refuge that provide minimal opportunity to improve wildlife habitat and are diffi cult to manage. Remaining refuge areas would be managed similar to those actions described in alternative B. Modifying the refuge’s boundary would enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to focus efforts on manageable lands, thereby enhancing refuge management and effi ciently directing refuge resources toward accomplishing the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System1 Introduction
Hooded Merganser
Glen Smart/USFWS
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS) has developed this draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) to provide a foundation for the management and use of the Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) located in central Wyoming near the city of Casper (fi gure 1). When fi nalized, the CCP will serve as a working guide for management programs and actions over the next 15 years.This draft CCP was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described within this draft CCP and environmental assessment (EA) meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Compliance with the NEPA is being achieved through the involvement of the public.The fi nal CCP will specify the necessary actions to achieve the vision and purposes of Pathfi nder NWR. Wildlife is the fi rst priority in refuge management, and public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with the refuge’s purpose.The draft CCP and the EA have been prepared by a planning team comprised of representatives from various Service programs (refuge planning, educationand visitor services, and ecological services), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department (WGFD). In addition, the planning team incorporated public input. Public involvement and the planning process are described in section 1.6 below.After reviewing a wide range of public comments and management needs, the planning team developed alternatives for management of the refuge. The team recommended one alternative to be the Service’s proposed action. This action addresses all substantive issues while determining how best to achieve the purpose of the refuge. The proposed action is the Service’s recommended course of action for management of the refuge. The proposed action is summarized in chapter 3, with its predicted effects described in chapter 5. The details of the proposed action compose the draft CCP (chapter 6).
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this draft CCP is to identify the role that the refuge will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), and to provide long-term guidance for management of refuge programs and activities. The CCP is needed:􀁒􅈠 to communicate with the public and other partners in efforts to carry out the mission of the Refuge System;􀁒􅈠 to provide a clear statement of direction for management of the refuge;2 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Map showing location of the refuge within Wyoming. Map showing location of the refuge within Wyoming.Map showing location of the refuge within Wyoming.Chapter 1 — Introduction 3
􀁒􅉴to provide neighbors, visitors, and government offi cials with an understanding of the Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;􀁒􅉴to ensure that the Service’s management actions are consistent with the mandates of the Improvement Act;􀁒􅉴to ensure that management of the refuge is consistent with federal, state, and county plans;􀁒􅉴to provide a basis for development of budget requests for the refuge’s operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.Sustaining the nation’s fi sh and wildlife resources is a task that can be accomplished only through the combined efforts of governments, businesses, and private citizens.
1.2 THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM
The Service is the principal federal agency responsible for fi sh, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge System is one of the Service’s major programs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people.
Over a century ago, America’s fi sh and wildlife resources were declining at an alarming rate. Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling groups joined together to restore and sustain America’s national wildlife heritage. This was the genesis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers endangered species, and helps other governments with conservation efforts. In addition, the Service administers a federal aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars to states for fi sh and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, and related programs across America.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated the 5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s fi rst wildlife refuge for the protection of brown pelicans and other native, nesting birds. This small but signifi cant designation was the beginning of the Refuge System.
One hundred years later, the Refuge System has become the largest collection of lands in the world specifi cally managed for wildlife, encompassing over 96 million acres within 546 refuges and over 3,000 small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting. Today, there is at least one refuge in every state as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.In 1997, the Improvement Act established a clear mission for the Refuge System.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fi sh, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefi t of present and future generations of Americans.
The Improvement Act states that each national wildlife refuge shall be managed􀁒􅉴to fulfi ll the mission of the Refuge System;􀁒􅉴to fulfi ll the individual purposes of each refuge;􀁒􅉴to consider the needs of fi sh and wildlife fi rst;􀁒􅉴to fulfi ll the requirement of developing a CCP for each unit of the Refuge System and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;􀁒􅉴to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;􀁒􅉴to recognize that the six wildlife-dependent recreation activities (hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are legitimate and priority public uses;􀁒􅉴to retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge System stresses the following principles:􀁒􅉗Wildlife comes fi rst.􀁒􅉅Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts.􀁒􅉈Habitats must be healthy.􀁒􅉇Growth of the Refuge System must be strategic.􀁒􅉔The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from others.4 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Following passage of the Improvement Act, the Service immediately began to carry out the direction of the new legislation, including preparation of CCPs for all national wildlife refuges and wetland management districts. Consistent with the Improvement Act, the Service prepares all CCPs in conjunction with public involvement. Each refuge is required to complete its CCP within the 15-year schedule (by 2012).
PEOPLE AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM
The nation’s fi sh and wildlife heritage contributes to the quality of American lives. Wildlife and wild placesprovide special opportunities to recreate, relax, and enjoy the natural world.Whether through bird watching, fi shing, hunting, photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife recreation contributes millions of dollars to local economies. In 2006, nearly 35 million people visited the Refuge System, mostly to observe wildlife in their natural habitats (Carver and Caudill 2007). Visitors are most often accommodated through nature trails, auto tours, interpretive programs, and hunting and fi shing opportunities. Signifi cant economic benefi ts are being generated to the local communities that surround refuges. During fi scal year 2006, recreational use on national wildlife refuges generated almost $1.7 billion of sales in regional economies, supported approximately 27,000 private sector jobs, produced about $543 million in employment income, and generated nearly $185.3 million in tax revenue at the local, county, state, and federal levels (Carver and Caudill 2007).
1.3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL MANDATES
Refuge System units are managed to achieve the designated purpose of the refuge (as described in establishing legislation, executive orders, or other establishing documents) and the mission and goals of the Refuge System. Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System are in the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act), Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” and the Improvement Act.The Improvement Act amends the Administration Act by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process for determining compatible public uses on refuges, and a requirement that each refuge be managed under a CCP. The Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of Refuge System lands and that the Secretary of the Interior will ensure the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge must be managed to fulfi ll the Refuge System’s mission and the specifi c purposes for which it was established. The
Improvement Act requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fi sh, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.A detailed description of these and other laws and executive orders that may affect the CCP or the Service’s implementation of the CCP is in appendix A. Service policies on planning and day-to-day management of refuges are in the “Refuge System Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.”
1.4 REFUGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANS
Pathfi nder NWR contributes to the conservation efforts described here.
FULFILLING THE PROMISE
A 1999 report, “Fulfi lling the Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1999), is the culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. This report was the focus of the fi rst national Refuge System conference in 1998 attended by refuge managers, other Service employees, and representatives from leading conservation organizations.The report contains 42 recommendations packaged with three vision statements dealing with wildlife and habitat, people, and leadership. This draft CCP deals with all three of these major topics. The planning team looked to the recommendations in the document for guidance during CCP planning.
PARTNERS IN FLIGHT
The Partners in Flight program began in 1990 with the recognition of declining population levels of many migratory bird species. The challenge, according to the program, is managing human population growth while maintaining functional natural ecosystems. To meet this challenge, Partners in Flight worked to establish priorities for conservation efforts and identify land bird species and habitat types. Partners in Flight activity has resulted in 52 bird conservation plans covering the continental United States.The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide for the long-term health of the bird life of North America. The fi rst priority is to prevent the rarest species from going extinct, the second is to prevent uncommon species from descending into threatened status, and the third is to “keep common birds common.”There are 58 physiographic areas, defi ned by similar physical geographic features, wholly or partially contained within the contiguous United States and several others wholly or partially in Alaska. Pathfi nder NWR falls within physiographic area 86, the Wyoming Basin (fi gure 2).Chapter 1 — Introduction 5
U.S. map showing physiographic areas. U.S. map showing physiographic areas.U.S. map showing physiographic areas.
The Wyoming Basin is primarily in Wyoming but also extends into northern Colorado, southern Montana, and very small parts of northeast Utah and southeast Idaho. The area consists of broad intermountain basins interrupted by isolated hills and low mountains that merge to the south into a dissected plateau. The Wyoming Basin is primarily shrub–steppe habitat, dominated by sagebrush and shadscale, interspersed with areas of short-grass prairie. Higher elevations are in mountain shrub vegetation, with coniferous forest atop the highest areas. Priority bird populations and habitats of the Wyoming Basin include:Shrub–Steppe Ferruginous hawk Prairie falcon Greater sage-grouse Cassin’s kingbird Sage thrasher Brewer’s sparrow Sage sparrowSagebrush Grasslands Swainson’s hawk Mountain plover McCowan’s longspur
Montane Shrub Lewis’s woodpecker Virginia’s warblerWetlands American white pelican Wilson’s phalaropeA large percentage of the Wyoming Basin is in public ownership, with the BLM owning much of the lower elevation shrub–steppe and grassland and the U.S. Forest Service owning a great deal of the higher-elevation wooded land. A checkerboard pattern of land ownership is a subtle problem that affects the consistency of land management over large areas. The primary land use in the Wyoming Basin has been for many years and continues to be grazing, although conversion to agriculture is also an issue. The effects of overgrazing and nonnative plant invasion should be mitigated to improve conditions for breeding birds. Maintenance of springs and riparian habitat may be crucial, particularly to sage-grouse. Fencing or changing grazing systems may be effective in maintaining water fl ow. Oil and gas extraction and hard rock mining are relatively recent factors that may negatively affect the greater landscape needs of the sage-grouse (Nicholoff 2003).6 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
RECOVERY PLANS FOR FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
Where federally listed threatened or endangered species occur at Pathfi nder NWR, management goals and strategies in their respective recovery plans will be followed. The list of threatened or endangered species that occur at the refuge will change as species are listed or delisted, or as listed species are discovered on refuge lands. Currently, no federally listed threatened or endangered species occur at the refuge.
STATE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION WILDLIFE STRATEGY
Over the past several decades, documented declines of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) program in 2001. This program provides states and territories with federal dollars to support conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered and in need of protection under the Endangered Species Act. The SWG program represents an ambitious endeavor to take a proactive role in keeping species from becoming threatened or endangered in the future.According to the SWG program, each state or territory and the District of Columbia must have completed a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (CWCS) by October 1, 2005, to receive future funding.These strategies will help defi ne an integrated approach to the stewardship of all wildlife species, with additional emphasis on species of concern and habitats at risk. The goal is to shift focus from single-species management and highly specialized individual efforts to a geographically based, landscape-oriented, fi sh and wildlife conservation effort. The Service approves CWCSs and administers SWG program funding.The CWCS for the state of Wyoming was reviewed and information therein was used during the development of the CCP. Implementation of CCP habitat goals and objectives will support the goals and objectives of the CWCS.
1.5 ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND THREATS
Pathfi nder NWR is located within the Platte–Kansas Rivers ecosystem, which includes almost all of Nebraska, southeast Wyoming, northeast Colorado, and northern Kansas (fi gure 3). The ecosystem is home to the Nebraska Sandhills, the largest sand dune complex in the western hemisphere. This area and many others provide vital habitat for numerous threatened and endangered wildlife and plant species.
The ecosystem spans from snow-capped, barren mountain peaks in Colorado to lowland riparian cottonwood forests along the Missouri River in eastern Nebraska and Kansas. The mountainous regions are predominately a mixture of coniferous forests comprised of Douglas fi r, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, Engelman spruce, and subalpine fi r. Pinyon pine, juniper woodlands, and aspen communities are also common throughout. At high elevation, alpine meadows and lakes, willow shrublands, and barren, rocky areas are frequently found. Forests generally transition into shrub communities dominated by sagebrush with short grasses and forbs in eastern Wyoming and western Nebraska. Farther to the east, trees give way to short-grass prairie dominated by buffalo grass, blue gramma, hairy gramma, and western wheatgrass. The short-grass prairie turns into mixed-grass prairie in central Nebraska and Kansas, due primarily to greater annual rainfall.Threats to the Platte–Kansas Rivers ecosystem that require attention include overgrazing of land, invasive plants, population growth and housing development, and groundwater and surface-water depletion. To overcome these threats, the priorities for the ecosystem will be to ensure that natural, healthy ecological processes dominate and that economic development complements environmental protection.
1.6 THE PLANNING PROCESS
This draft CCP and the EA for Pathfi nder NWR is intended to comply with the Improvement Act and the NEPA as well as the implementing regulations of the acts. The Service issued its Refuge System planning policy in 2000, which established requirements and guidance for refuge plans—including CCPs and step-down management plans—to ensure that planning efforts comply with the Improvement Act. The planning policy identifi ed several steps of the CCP and environmental analysis process (see fi gure 4). Table 1 displays the planning process to date for this draft CCP and EA. The Service began the preplanning process in January 2006. The planning team consists of Service personnel from various programs including refuge planning, education and visitor services, and ecological services, as well as representatives from the BLM, Reclamation, and WGFD (appendix B). During preplanning, the team developed a mailing list, internal issues, and a special qualities list. The planning team identifi ed current refuge program status, compiled and analyzed relevant data, and determined the purpose of the refuge. Over the course of preplanning and scoping (the process of obtaining information from the public for input into the planning process), the planning team collected available information about the resources Chapter 1 — Introduction 7
Map of the Platte-Kansas rivers ecosystem, showing dam locations.8 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
of the refuge and the surrounding areas. Chapter 4 summarizes this information.The draft CCP (chapter 6) outlines long-term guidance for management decisions; sets forth proposed objectives and strategies to accomplish refuge purposes and meet goals; and identifi es the Service’s best estimate of future needs.The draft CCP details program levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning purposes.A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the draft CCP and EA was published in the “Federal Register” on June 16, 2006. Public scoping began in May 2006 with public meetings in Casper and Laramie, Wyoming.
Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.Chart of the 8 planning steps. Chart of the 8 planning steps.
COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC
The Service held two public scoping meetings in May 2006 (see table 1 for details) announced by the local media. During the public meetings, a description of the CCP and NEPA process was provided. Participants were asked to provide suggestions on the scope of issues to be considered in the planning process, and comments were recorded and entered in the planning record. Attendees were encouraged to
ask questions and offer comments; each attendee was given a comment form to submit additional thoughts or questions in writing.Approximately 51 people attended the public meetings. Attendees included local citizens and members of the Audubon Wyoming, the Wyoming Outdoor Council, and Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.Written comments were due July 17, 2006. A total of 70 written comments were received throughout the scoping process. Input obtained from meetings and correspondence including email was considered in development of this draft CCP and EA.A mailing list of more than 148 contacts includes private citizens; local, regional, and state government representatives and legislators; other federal agencies; and interested organizations (appendix C).In September 2006, the fi rst planning update was sent to everyone on the mailing list. Information was provided on the history of the refuge and the CCP process, along with an invitation to share ideas regarding refuge management with the planning team. Each planning update included a comment form and postage-paid envelope to give the public an opportunity to provide written comments.Chapter 1 — Introduction 9
Table 1. Planning process summary for Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming.
Date
Event
Outcome
January–March 2006
Preplanning.
CCP overview; established planning team;
identifi ed purpose of the refuge, history, and
establishing authority; developed planning schedule
and CCP mailing list.
April 27, 2006
Kickoff meeting.
Toured refuge; conducted internal scoping by
developing issues and qualities list for the refuge;
identifi ed biological and mapping needs; developed a
vision statement for the refuge.
May 8, 2006
News release for public
Notifi ed public of opportunities for involvement in
meeting sent to Wyoming
the CCP process.
media contacts.
May 24, 2006
Public meeting in Casper,
Opportunity for the public to learn about the CCP
WY.
and offer suggestions on the scope of issues to be
considered in the planning process.
May 25, 2006
Public meeting in Laramie,
Opportunity for the public to learn about the CCP
WY.
and offer suggestions on the scope of issues to be
considered in the planning process.
June 16, 2006
NOI (to prepare the CCP)
Notifi ed the public of the intention to prepare a
published in the “Federal
CCP and EA for Pathfi nder NWR.
Register.”
August 31, 2006
Goals and alternatives
Goals developed; alternatives discussed.
workshop.
September 2006
Planning update distributed
Planning update (describing CCP process and
to CCP mailing list.
providing opportunity for public suggestions on
the scope of issues to be considered in the planning
process).
January 25, 2007
Environmental consequences
Reviewed the anticipated environmental
workshop and identifi cation
consequences; identifi ed alternative C as the
of the proposed action.
proposed action.
Spring 2008
Internal review of the draft
Received comments on the draft CCP and EA.
CCP and EA.
Summer 2008
Release of draft CCP and EA
Draft CCP and EA presented to the public;
for public review.
received comments on the draft CCP and EA.
Summer 2008
Public meeting in Casper,
Increased public understanding of the draft CCP
WY.
and EA; received public comments about the draft
CCP and EA.
STATE COORDINATION
On January 27, 2006, an invitation letter to participate in the CCP process was sent by the Service’s region 6 director to the director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Two representatives from the WGFD are part of the CCP planning team. Local WGFD wildlife biologists and the refuge staff had established excellent and ongoing working relations before starting the CCP process.The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is charged with providing “an adequate and fl exible system for the control, management, protection,
and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife.” The WGFD maintains 36 Wildlife Habitat Management Areas and 96 Public Access Areas, encompassing 410,000 acres of managed lands for wildlife habitat and public recreation opportunity. These lands contain 121 miles of stream easements and about 21,014 surface acres of lakes and reservoirs for public access (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2006).
TRIBAL COORDINATION
On October 17, 2006, fi ve Native American tribal governments (Arapaho, Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Oglala Sioux, and Shoshone) were contacted through a letter signed by Service’s region 6 director. With 10 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
information about the upcoming CCP, the letter invited tribal recipients to serve on the planning team. Although Native American tribal governments did not express interest in participating on the planning team, the tribal governments remain on the CCP mailing list and will continue to receive CCP correspondence (planning updates, draft CCP and EA, fi nal CCP) and will be given an opportunity to comment on the draft CCP and EA documents.
RESULTS OF SCOPING
Table 1 summarizes all scoping activities. Comments collected from scoping meetings and correspondence, including comment forms, were used in the development of a fi nal list of issues to be addressed in this draft CCP and EA.The Service determined which alternatives could best address these issues. The planning process ensures that issues with the greatest affect on the refuge are resolved or given priority over the life of the fi nal CCP. Identifi ed issues, along with a discussion of effects on resources, are summarized in chapter 2.In addition, the Service considered suggested changes to current refuge management presented by the public and other groups. 2 The Refuge
Northern pintail
USFWS
The Pathfi nder Wildlife Refuge (later renamed the “Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge”) was established by executive order (EO) in 1909. The refuge’s boundaries have been modifi ed several times since its establishment. The present-day refuge comprises four separate units—Sweetwater Arm, Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek—totaling 16,806 acres (fi gure 5).
2.1 ESTABLISHMENT, ACQUISITION, AND MANAGEMENT HISTORY
The origins of present-day Pathfi nder NWR can be traced to June 17, 1902, when Congress authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to build the Pathfi nder Dam and Reservoir in central Wyoming. When dam construction was completed in 1909, the refuge was established on the reservoir as an overlay refuge on Reclamation lands. As such, lands and waters are under the primary jurisdiction of Reclamation, and the refuge purpose is superimposed as a secondary interest in the property. Primary administration is retained by Reclamation, the host agency. Wildlife management must be compatible with those uses for which the primary agency acquired the land.Below is a summary of the legislation that has shaped the refuge over the years:
􀁒􅈠 EO 1032 (February 25, 1909)—established Pathfi nder Wildlife Refuge on the Pathfi nder Reservoir site “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.”􀁒􅈠 EO 3725 (August 18, 1922)—revoked that part of EO 1032 reserving the Pathfi nder Reservoir site for use “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” 􀁒􅈠 EO 4860 (April 19, 1928)—reestablished the area created by EO 1032 “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.”􀁒􅈠 EO 7425 (August 1, 1936)—established the present refuge and designated it “as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and other wildlife.”􀁒􅈠 EO 8296 (November 30, 1939)—changed the refuge name from “Pathfi nder Wildlife Refuge” to “Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge.” Primary jurisdiction of most of the refuge lands remains under Reclamation’s authority. Reclamation administers lands within the Pathfi nder Project boundary for North Platte Project purposes including fl ood control, irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) specifi es the management responsibilities of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (BSFW), 12 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
the Service’s predecessor, while preserving the autonomy of Reclamation to manage Pathfi nder Dam and Reservoir (see appendix D).The North Platte Project is a 111-mile irrigation project stretching along the North Platte River Valley from Guernsey, Wyoming, to Bridgeport, Nebraska (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation [USBR]). The project provides full-service irrigation for about 226,000 acres and supplemental irrigation service for a combined area of roughly 109,000 acres. The project includes fi ve storage dams, four diversion dams, a pumping plant, and a power plant, as well as about 2,000 miles of canals, laterals, and drains.Many mountain streams rising in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and Wyoming feed the North Platte River. Its waters are stored and used for irrigation and power development for the North Platte Project and related projects. These projects’ storage structures require close operational coordination, which is further complicated by various agreements and laws governing water rights. Before reaching the Pathfi nder Reservoir, the North Platte River waters pass through the Seminoe and Kortes dams, where they are joined by waters from the Sweetwater River. Pathfi nder Reservoir holds much of the North Platte Project water, with a storage capacity of 1,016,000 acre-feet. A small amount of water is released during the nonirrigation season to satisfy other water rights, enhance fi sh and wildlife, and operate power plants downstream, and during the irrigation season, water is released as required.Pathfi nder Dam is located about 3 miles below the North Platte River’s junction with the Sweetwater River.In the 1960s, the BSFW became increasingly concerned with the decline in waterfowl use of the reservoir. This decline was attributed to various ecological changes resulting from Reclamation activities, particularly water manipulation. Recreational activities were also increasing, and the trend was expected to continue. The BSFW concluded that developing and intensively managing only areas that had existing and potential waterfowl attraction would better benefi t wildlife than continuing extensive management of the entire area. To this effect, various memorandums of agreement and understanding were signed with Reclamation and other agencies that oversee lands on the Pathfi nder Reservoir:􀁒􅈠 February 12, 1963—a proposal was made to limit the boundary of Pathfi nder NWR to include only the Sweetwater Arm Unit and three small areas (Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek units) designated for waterfowl production on the main body of the reservoir.
􀁒􅈠 May 20, 1963—the proposal was approved in a memorandum to the BSFW’s regional director of the division of technical services.􀁒􅈠 May 19, 1964—the proposal was carried out through partial revocation of EO 7425, which deleted 31,545 acres from the refuge. 􀁒􅈠 May 26, 1964—an MOU was signed between Reclamation and the BSFW (contract #14-06-700-4605), allowing the latter to manage land and water areas, including grazing, recreation, and related uses, for the conservation of wildlife resources (appendix D). 􀁒􅈠 September 10, 1964—the BSFW submitted an application to the BLM for the withdrawal of lands from the BLM to add 1,971.97 acres to Pathfi nder NWR. The withdrawal of 1,574.84 acres of land was completed November 4, 1964, and serial number Wyoming 0311814 was assigned. 􀁒􅈠 May 7, 1965—Public Land Order 3657 placed 2,554 acres of public land under the primary responsibility of the BSFW through a realignment of the refuge boundary. 􀁒􅈠 November 16, 1965—an MOA (contract #14-06-700-4737) between Reclamation, the BLM, and the BSFW transferred administration of the grazing program to the BLM. ��􅈠 May 19, 1966—an MOU (contract #14-06-700-4749) between Reclamation, the Natrona County Commissioners, and the BSFW was established concerning the administration and development of land and facilities at Alcova, Pathfi nder, and Grays Reef reservoirs for recreational purposes. 􀁒􅈠 May 19, 1991—an MOU (contract # 1-AG-60-01340) between Reclamation and Natrona County replaced the MOU dated May 19, 1966. The area at Pathfi nder NWR covered by this MOU is the Bishops Point Recreation Area in the Sweetwater Arm Unit. These recreational lands are currently within the refuge’s boundary and therefore are subject to the Service’s appropriate use and compatibility policies.
2.2 SPECIAL VALUES OF THE REFUGE
Early in the planning process, the planning team and public identifi ed the outstanding qualities of Pathfi nder NWR, the characteristics and features that make it special to people, valuable for wildlife, and worthy of refuge status. Identifying these values at the outset helps ensure they will be preserved, protected, and enhanced throughout the planning process. Refuge qualities can range from providing a unique biological habitat for wildlife to offering visitors a quiet place to observe a variety of birds and enjoy nature. The following summarizes the qualities that make portions of the refuge unique and valued.Chapter 2 — The Refuge 13
Line drawing of American avocets.Line drawing of American avocets. Line drawing of American avocets.
Wildlife and Habitat
􀁒􅉆Forty species of waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds use the refuge for migration and nesting including mountain plover, phalarope, avocet, redhead duck, and scaup.􀁒􅉔The Steamboat Lake area of the Sweetwater Arm Unit provides important feeding and nesting habitat for waterfowl and other migratory bird species. 􀁒􅉔The refuge contains a large body of water in a semiarid environment that provides resting habitat for migratory birds.􀁒􅉕Uplands sagebrush habitat on the refuge supports sage-grouse, antelope, and other sage-obligate species. 􀁒􅉔The Sweetwater Arm Unit contains at least onesage-grouse lek, and likely early brood-rearing habitat.􀁒􅉔The refuge is designated an “Important Bird Area” (Audubon Wyoming).􀁒􅉁A state-listed rare plant, slender spiderfl ower, is present in the Sweetwater Arm Unit of the refuge. 􀁒􅉔The potential exists to form partnerships with other agencies and with private landowners in the area who are interested in maintaining and improving the refuge’s natural resources. 􀁒􅉃Currently, there is little pressure for development near the refuge.
Public Use
􀁒􅉔The refuge provides a variety of public recreation including the six priority public uses of the Refuge System (hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation).
􀁒􅉔The Steamboat Lake area of the refuge provides excellent wildlife observation and interpretation opportunities. 􀁒􅉔The Oregon Trail and Independence Rock offer opportunities to showcase the refuge to the public. 􀁒􅉔The refuge offers visitors open space and the opportunity to experience solitude in an aesthetically pleasing environment.
2.3 PURPOSE
Every refuge is established for a purpose. This purpose is the foundation upon which to build all refuge programs, from biology and public use to maintenance and facilities. No action that the Service or public takes may confl ict with this refuge purpose. The refuge purpose is found in the legislative acts or administrative orders, which are the authorities to either transfer or acquire a piece of land for a refuge. Over time an individual refuge may contain lands that have been acquired under a variety of transfer and acquisition authorities, giving it more than one purpose. The goals, objectives, and strategies identifi ed in the CCP are intended to support the individual purpose for which the refuge was established.As stated in EO 7425, the purpose of Pathfi nder NWR is “as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and other wildlife.”
2.4 VISION
At the beginning of the planning process, the Service developed a vision for Pathfi nder NWR. A vision describes what will be different in the future as a result of the CCP and is the essence of what the Service is trying to accomplish at the refuge. The vision is a future-oriented statement designed to be achieved through refuge management by the end of the 15-year CCP planning horizon. The vision for Pathfi nder NWR is the following.
Pathfi nder Reservoir and surrounding public lands supply life-cycle needs for a multitude of wildlife adapted to this semiarid region of central Wyoming. The wetland complexes, upland sagebrush habitats, and open waters of the reservoir provide feeding, breeding, staging, resting, and nesting areas for migratory birds and resident wildlife. Management decisions will be directed toward maintaining or improving wildlife habitat values. Appropriate public use opportunities will be identifi ed, and provided where possible.14 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Map showing topography and location of the refuge. Map showing topography and location of the refuge.Map showing topography and location of the refuge.Chapter 2 — The Refuge 15
2.5 GOALS
The Service also developed a set of goals for the refuge based on the Improvement Act, the refuge purpose, and information developed during project planning. The goals direct work toward achieving the vision and purpose of the refuge and outline approaches for managing refuge resources. The following fi ve goals were identifi ed for Pathfi nder NWR.
Natural Resources Goal
Conserve the ecological diversity of uplands and wetlands to support healthy populations of native wildlife, with an emphasis on migratory birds.
Visitor Services Goal
Provide wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities to a diverse audience when the administration of these programs does not adversely affect habitat management objectives.
Partnerships Goal
Work with partners to support healthy populations ofnative wildlife and to increase the understanding of wildlife needs as well as the benefi ts wildlife offer to local communities.
Cultural Resources Goal
Identify and evaluate the cultural resources on the refuge and protect those that are determined to be signifi cant.
Administrative Goal
Obtain administrative capabilities that will result in effi cient strategies to manage the landscape to achieve habitat and public management goals.
2.6 PLANNING ISSUES
Several key issues were identifi ed following the analysis of comments collected from refuge staff and the public, as well as a review of the requirements of the Improvement Act and the NEPA. Substantive comments (those that could be addressed within the authority and management capabilities of the Service) were considered during the formulation of the alternatives for future management. These key issues for Pathfi nder NWR are summarized below.
Refuge Management
Pathfi nder NWR is part of the Arapaho NWR Complex. Refuge staff are headquartered near Walden, Colorado, approximately a four-hour drive from the refuge. The complex’s small staff size (four full-time employees), limited resources, and remote headquarters create management challenges for the refuge, including a lack of day-to-day oversight and minimal opportunities for law enforcement. Degrading infrastructure (specifi cally, roads, fences,
and signs) and litter occur on the refuge due to lack of active management. Management of Pathfi nder Reservoir and refuge lands by multiple agencies creates additional management challenges. The Service currently has memorandums of agreement and understanding with a number of agencies in the Casper region including Reclamation, BLM, WGFD, and Natrona County. Reclamation has a withdrawal on Pathfi nder Reservoir project lands to support project purposes (i.e., fl ood control, irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation). The Service has a withdrawal on refuge lands for wildlife management purposes. The roles and responsibilities of each agency should be clearly defi ned, evaluated, and simplifi ed where possible during the CCP planning process.
Refuge Uses
Refuge uses (grazing and recreation) need to be evaluated to ensure existing and proposed uses are compatible with the purpose of the refuge and mission of the Refuge System. Refuge uses have not been actively evaluated over time due to minimal staff presence. Through the development of this CCP, refuge uses and management activities will be evaluated to ensure the best, most informed decisions are made for proper management of refuge lands. For a use to be deemed compatible, appropriate staff and resources must be available to manage the use.
Water Resources
Water and water availability are vital in semiarid regions. The Service does not own water rights for the refuge, which can result in poor wildlife habitat for trust species.
Water Level Fluctuation
During the past 20 years the average fl uctuation of the reservoir water level was 20 feet per year with a range of 8–40 feet, resulting in a lack of shoreline vegetation and food source for migratory birds and nesting cover for waterfowl. The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for managing reservoir water levels.
Separated Land Parcels
The refuge consists of four separate units. Separated land parcels are generally more diffi cult to access and manage than contiguous parcels of land, and generally of less value to wildlife.
Invasive Species
Invasive species are a threat to quality habitat. If not contained early, they can also drain resources. Tamarisk and Canada thistle have been identifi ed on the refuge. An increase in monitoring, management, and control of these and other invasive species is needed.16 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Research and Science
The Service needs to obtain good baseline data for the refuge. Monitoring programs need to be implemented for species that use the refuge. Audubon Wyoming could be a partner in gathering quality research data on the refuge.
Partnerships
Cooperation with other agencies is needed to address issues of common concern. Opportunities for the public to assist in the protection and management of the refuge should be identifi ed and provided. Local conservation groups could help raise funds for the refuge either directly or by lobbying state and federal representatives.
Staffi ng
The refuge should be managed by Service staff stationed in Wyoming. This issue was raised frequently in public meetings. The managing staff is currently headquartered at Arapaho NWR in Walden, Colorado, a four-hour drive from the refuge. The remote location of staff prevents active, consistent oversight of the refuge.
3 Alternatives
Pricklypear
Bob Hines /USFWS
This chapter describes the management alternatives considered for Pathfi nder NWR. Alternatives are different approaches to planning unit management designed to achieve:􀁒􅈠 the refuge’s purpose, vision, and goals􀁒􅈠 the mission of the Refuge System􀁒􅈠 the mission of the Service
3.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
Alternatives are formulated to address the signifi cant issues, concerns, and problems identifi ed by the Service, the public, and the governmental partners during public scoping and throughout the development of the draft plan.This chapter contains the following sections:􀁒􅈠 elements common to all alternatives􀁒􅈠 description of alternatives􀁒􅈠 summary of alternatives and environmental consequences (table 2)
This chapter describes three management alternatives that represent different approaches to enhance protection and restoration of fi sh, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources. Alternative A, the no-action alternative, describes ongoing refuge management. The no-action alternative is a basis of comparison with alternatives B and C. Alternative C is the Service’s proposed action and basis for the draft CCP (chapter 6).The planning team assessed biological conditions and external relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed to the development of alternatives, each of which presents a unique approach for addressing long-term goals. Each alternative was evaluated based on expected progress in meeting the vision and goals of the refuge and how it would address core wildlife and habitat issues and threats. Where data are available, trends in habitat and wildlife are evaluated, and the environmental consequences of each alternative are projected.18 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED
No alternatives were considered but eliminated during the planning process.
3.3 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
Several elements of refuge management are common to all alternatives. Management activities that could affect natural, archaeological, and historical resources would comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.All alternatives would provide equal protection and management of cultural resources. Individual projects may require additional consultation with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Offi ce. Additional consultation, surveys, and clearance may be required when activities could affect properties eligible for the National Historic Register.
3.4 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Management actions to advance the mission of the Refuge System and the purpose and vision of Pathfi nder NWR are summarized below. The alternatives refl ect options to address signifi cant threats, problems, and issues raised by public agencies, private citizens, and interested organizations.Each alternative differs in its ability to achieve long-term wildlife and habitat goals. However, each is similar in its approach to managing the refuge. Each alternative􀁒􅈠 would pursue the goals outlined in chapter 2;􀁒􅈠 would be consistent with the purpose of the refuge and with the mission and goals of the Refuge System.The focus and actions for each of alternatives A–C are described below.
ALTERNATIVE A—CURRENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (NO ACTION)
Alternative A, the no-action alternative, refl ects the current management of Pathfi nder NWR. It provides the baseline against which to compare other alternatives. It is also a requirement of the NEPA that a no-action alternative is addressed in the planning process.The no-action or current management alternative should not be interpreted to mean no change in refuge management. National wildlife refuges are required to be managed in compliance with Refuge System laws, regulations, and policies. The CCP
process provides an opportunity to review and update current refuge management to comply with Refuge System laws, regulations, and policies. Under alternative A, management activity being conducted by the Service would remain the same. The Service would not develop any new management, research, restoration, education, or visitor services programs at the refuge. Current habitat and wildlife practices benefi ting migratory bird species and other wildlife would not be expanded or changed. No new funding or staff levels would occur and programs would continue to follow the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as they do at present.
Refuge Administration
The Bureau of Reclamation would continue to administer lands within the Pathfi nder Project boundary. The Service would continue to manage the area within the refuge boundary as a national wildlife refuge in accordance with the MOU between Reclamation and the Service (appendix D). Management agreements would be reviewed to provide a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each party.
Refuge Uses
Existing refuge uses would be evaluated to determine if the use is appropriate on a refuge (appendix E). If the use is found to be appropriate, a compatibility determination would be made before the use is allowed to occur on the refuge (appendix F).
Line drawing of ground squirrel. Line drawing of ground squirrel.Chapter 3 — Alternatives 19
Habitat Management
Reservoir (Deepwater)
Reclamation would continue to manage the water levels of the Pathfi nder Reservoir. The Service would continue to own no water rights and have no control over the reservoir water level.
Wetlands and Riparian Areas
No management of refuge wetlands would occur due to the Service’s lack of water rights and limited infrastructure. Riparian habitats and wetlands in the Steamboat Lake area of the Sweetwater Arm Unit and Goose Bay Unit would continue to receive water based on natural runoff and hydrological processes.
Uplands
Uplands habitat management would continue to consist of grazing the refuge in conjunction with adjacent BLM grazing allotments. The grazing program would continue to be administered by the BLM through an MOA between the Service and the BLM. The lack of boundary fencing on the refuge would continue to prohibit management of the grazing program to Service standards. An evaluation of upland habitat conditions would assist refuge staff in determining appropriate grazing program as a habitat management tool. Current stocking rates, duration, seasons, and so forth would continue until data analysis indicates further management direction.
Threatened and Endangered Species and State Species of Concern
Management for threatened and endangered species and state species of concern would occur if they were discovered on the refuge. At the present time, no known threatened or endangered species or state species of concern use Pathfi nder NWR.
Invasive Species
Monitoring and management of invasive species would continue at present levels with no active monitoring of invasive species occurring.
Visitor Services
Public use of the refuge would be evaluated to determine appropriate uses under the guidelines established in the Service’s appropriate uses and compatibility policies. Five of the six wildlife-dependent public uses (hunting, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) would be maintained and encouraged to the extent possible. The sixth use, fi shing, is not allowed on the refuge.
Hunting
All four units of the refuge would remain open to hunting of ducks, coots, mergansers, deer, and pronghorn in accordance with dates and regulations established by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. WGFD would assist with law enforcement activities related to hunting regulations on the refuge.
Fishing
The refuge is closed to fi shing and would remain closed to fi shing.
Wildlife Observation, Photography, EnvironmentalEducation, and Interpretation
The refuge would continue to provide wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation opportunities. The Service would continue to partner with Audubon Wyoming to maintain the interpretive site off Highway 220 at the Sweetwater Arm Unit. Audubon Wyoming would continue to use the site for environmental education purposes.
Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation
Existing and proposed nonwildlife-dependent recreational uses such as picnicking, camping, water sports, motorboating, and sailing would be evaluated for appropriateness and compatibility with the purpose of the refuge. Uses that are found to be inappropriate or incompatible would be modifi ed or eliminated.
Research and Science
Refuge staff would not conduct research on the refuge. Data collection would continue to be opportunistic in nature and performed mainly by other entities.
Partnerships
Existing refuge partnerships would be maintained, but no new partnerships would be developed or pursued. Refuge staff would continue to work with Audubon Wyoming toward the goals of habitat protection and restoration, public education and awareness, and data collection at the refuge.
Operations
The refuge would continue to be managed by Service staff headquartered at the Arapaho NWR near Walden, Colorado.
ALTERNATIVE B—ENHANCED REFUGE MANAGEMENT
Under Alternative B, refuge management activities would be increased and enhanced. Refuge habitats 20 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
would be actively managed to achieve refuge goals and objectives. Refuge staff would strive to better understand the effects of management actions on the refuge. An emphasis on adaptive management, including monitoring the effects of habitat management practices and use of the research resultsto direct ongoing management, would be a priority. Partnerships would be essential to accomplish these actions.
Refuge Administration
Management agreements would be reviewed and updated, where appropriate, to provide a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each party. Refuge staff would investigate potential land exchanges with other agencies to block out the refuge boundary.
Refuge Uses
Proposed uses on refuge lands would be evaluated to determine if the use is appropriate on a refuge (appendix E). If the use is found to be appropriate, a compatibility determination would be made before the use is allowed to occur on the refuge (appendix F). Nonwildlife-dependent recreational uses would not be permitted on the refuge.
Habitat ManagementReservoir (Deepwater)
Reclamation would continue to manage the water levels of Pathfi nder Reservoir. The Service would continue to own no water rights and have no control over the reservoir water level.
Wetlands and Riparian Areas
No management of refuge wetlands would occur due to the Service’s lack of water rights and limited infrastructure. Riparian habitats and wetlands in the Steamboat Lake area and Goose Bay units would continue to receive water based on natural runoff andhydrological processes.
Uplands
Refuge personnel would work with the BLM to evaluate the grazing program to ensure grazing regimes meet wildlife objectives. The existing MOA (contract #14-06-700-4737) between the Service and the BLM, whereby BLM administers grazing, would be reviewed by both agencies and amended as needed or revoked. Fencing and other infrastructure needed to facilitate a grazing program would be evaluated and addressed. Uplands management would continue to use grazing as a habitat management tool under special use permit. Refuge grazing programs (stocking rates, duration, and seasons) would be evaluated to determine whether grazing would be used as a habitat management
tool. Boundary fencing would be installed, where appropriate, to permit active management of the grazing program.The use of additional habitat management tools (e.g., prescribed fi re, mechanical, chemical) would be considered where appropriate.
Threatened and Endangered Species and State Species of Concern
Monitoring for the presence of threatened and endangered species and state species of concern on the refuge would be increased.
Invasive Species
Monitoring and management of invasive species on the refuge would be increased.
Visitor Services
The six priority wildlife-dependent public uses and supporting programs would be enhanced and expanded. A step-down management plan would be developed to address refuge access, circulation, facility, and infrastructure needs.
Hunting
All four units of the refuge would remain open to hunting of ducks, coots, mergansers, deer, and pronghorn in accordance with dates and regulations established by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. Hunting programs would be enhanced to provide a higher-quality hunt where possible.
Fishing
Refuge staff would consider opening the refuge to fi shing through the CFR process. A compatibility determination would be performed to ensure compliance with refuge goals and objectives. Boating would be controlled to minimize impacts to migratory bird species. Fishing would be permitted year-round in accordance with dates and regulations established by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, except where otherwise posted.
Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
Efforts to provide wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation opportunities on the refuge would be expanded. The interpretive overlook off Highway 220 in the Sweetwater Arm Unit would be maintained and enhanced. The Service would continue to partner with Audubon Wyoming to expand opportunities for these four uses on the refuge.
Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation
Nonwildlife-dependent recreational uses such as picnicking, camping, water sports, motorboating, and sailing would not be permitted on the refuge. Chapter 3 — Alternatives 21
Facilities and infrastructure that support these uses would be modifi ed or removed as expediently as possible.
Line drawing of mouse. Line drawing of mouse.
Research and Science
Baseline data for habitat and wildlife on the refuge would be acquired. Refuge staff would partner with universities and other entities to collect baseline data to identify refuge resources and obtain a better understanding of the effects of management activities.
Partnerships
Increased emphasis would be placed on maintaining existing and developing new partnerships to achieve refuge goals and objectives. Efforts would be increased to focus research-based partnerships on collecting baseline data for the refuge.
Operations
The refuge would be managed by Service staff headquartered at Arapaho NWR near Walden, Colorado. One additional full-time employee would be hired to perform increased management activities at Pathfi nder NWR and at three refuges located near Laramie known collectively as the “Laramie Plains refuges” (Bamforth, Hutton Lake, and Mortenson Lake). Additional funding would be required to fully implement the goals, objectives, and strategies described in this alternative.
ALTERNATIVE C—MODIFY REFUGE BOUNDARY (PROPOSED ACTION)
Under Alternative C, the refuge boundary would be modifi ed to remove areas from the refuge that provide minimal opportunity to improve wildlife habitat and are diffi cult to manage. Remaining refuge areas would be managed similar to those actions described in alternative B. Modifying the refuge’s boundary would enable the Service to focus efforts on manageable lands, thereby enhancing
refuge management and effi ciently directing refuge resources toward accomplishing the mission of the Refuge System.
History and Development of the Refuge
Pathfi nder Dam construction was completed in 1909. The dam created Pathfi nder Reservoir, the fi rst reservoir on the North Platte River. At the same time, Pathfi nder NWR was established as an overlay refuge on the reservoir. This large body of water was very attractive to waterbirds, as it was a unique feature along the North Platte River in Wyoming. From 1905 to 1924, over 2,000 miles of canals, laterals, and drains were dug across Wyoming and Nebraska. As these canals were completed, Reclamation initiated plans to build more dams along the North Platte River. Ultimately, a number of dams were built downstream of Pathfi nder Reservoir. Upstream dams were also built, and the waters of the North Platte River pass through Seminoe and Kortes dams before entering Pathfi nder Reservoir (Autobee 1996).In 1928, the Guernsey Dam and Power Plant were constructed, expanding the purpose of Pathfi nder Reservoir to include the generation of hydroelectric power. With the building of subsequent dams on the North Platte River, and the expanded use of Pathfi nder Reservoir, the Service’s ability to manage Pathfi nder NWR to benefi t migratory bird species was limited. A 1964 memorandum from the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to the Wyoming State Offi ce of the Bureau of Land Management indicates the issues and concerns regarding management of the refuge and the decision to delete lands from the refuge. Below is an excerpt from this memorandum: The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has become increasingly concerned with the decline in waterfowl use of the reservoir. This is attributed to various ecological changes resulting from Bureau of Reclamation activities, particularly water manipulation. Recreation pressure is also increasing and the trend is expected to continue. The popularity of this site for boating and fi shing has contributed to the dilemma.We have concluded that rather than continue extensive management of the entire area, it will be more worthwhile from a wildlife management viewpoint to develop and intensively manage only those portions that have existing and potential waterfowl attraction.In 1964, Pathfi nder NWR was reduced from 48,353 acres to 16,806 acres. Current refuge lands include the Sweetwater Arm, Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek units.22 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
The present-day refuge lands were thought to have either existing or potential waterbird habitat. A few years following the initial reduction in refuge lands, however, the BSFW discovered that it did not have water rights to pursue the development of waterbird habitat. The following excerpt from the refuge’s 1966 annual narrative report (BSFW) documents the BSFW’s efforts to acquire water rights for the development of shallow-water wetlands at Pathfi nderNWR:After several years of hesitant water development, all with the permission of the Bureau of Reclamation, which has primary use of the Pathfi nder [Reservoir] waters, an effort was made this year to determine if any water was legally available to our Bureau. On July 13, Messrs. Godby and Nitisahke(sp) of the Regional Offi ce and the refuge manager met in a special session with offi cials of the Bureau of Reclamation in their Denver offi ce to discuss our possible fi ling on apparently unclaimed waters. It had appeared that there were some old water rights which had fallen to disuse on the Sweetwater River and its tributary, Horse Creek. The refuge hopes lay in claiming these rights so that ponds and crops could be developed for waterfowl.It was fi nally brought to light at this meeting that there were no unclaimed waters, that the Bureau of Reclamation had purchased said waters and transferred them to the reservoir pool as project water for the users downstream, and that the Bureau of Reclamation never has any water rights, anyway, since they are purchased solely forthe water districts. It now appears that, unless an outside chance of drilling a legal deep well avails itself, we are left without hope of additional water development on the refuge. This about pulls the props out from under any extensive program plans we may have treasured in our minds. Since that time, development of the refuge units for water management purposes has been nonexistent. Further complications with water rights have arisen since the signing in July 1997 of the North Platte River Compact, a three-state agreement between Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming to provide water for the life-cycle needs of endangered species in the North Platte River system. Water must be delivered downstream to be in compliance with this compact, further infl uencing the signifi cant water fl uctuations at Pathfi nder Reservoir. The benefi ts to the endangered species downstream are vital, and the compact must be adhered to by the Service and the three states involved.
Areas to Be Removed from the Refuge
The areas that would be removed from the refuge include the eastern half of the Sweetwater Arm Unit and the Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek units in their entirety. These areas would remain in federal ownership under the administrative jurisdiction of Reclamation or the BLM. Areas within the Reclamation Pathfi nder Project boundary would be managed by the Reclamation or its designee, and areas outside the project boundary would be returned to the public domain administered by the BLM (fi gure 6).
Sweetwater Arm Unit (eastern half)
While the large open water areas of the reservoir provide resting habitat for migratory birds, reservoir levels affect habitat, and the Service has no control over the water management of the reservoir. These areas that fall outside the proposed refuge boundary would continue to provide resting habitat for migratory birds in the future without Service oversight and management. Due to the fl uctuations in reservoir water levels (fi gure 7) and the dry, sandy soils at Pathfi nder NWR, most of the wetland areas along the reservoir shoreline do not provide submergent or emergent vegetation for waterfowl and do not meet habitat requirements for trust species. These fl uctuations also impact the uplands in the eastern half of the Sweetwater Arm Unit. As shown in the photograph below of the area, these upland areas have little vegetation and are dominated by sandy soils, producing marginal habitat (at best) for upland-obligate species.
Sand deposits in the uplands in the eastern half of Sweetwater Arm Unit.
Mark Ely/USFWS
Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek Units
The Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and Sage Creek units of Pathfi nder NWR are small, isolated tracts of land located at the southern end of the Pathfi nder Chapter 3 — Alternatives 23
Topographic map showing areas to be retained and removed from the refuge. Topographic map showing areas to be retained and removed from the refuge.Topographic map showing areas to be retained and removed from the refuge.24 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Reservoir. These tracts are 1,120 acres, 1,120 acres, and 1,520 acres, respectively. They consist primarily of sagebrush, with this habitat type occurring on 838 acres, 665 acres, and 1,207 acres, respectively. Adjacent lands consist primarily of similar sagebrush upland habitat managed by the BLM.The Goose Bay unit has 3–4 wetland areas that appear to be spring fed. The Deweese Creek Unit is adjacent to a number of alkaline wetlands. The North Platte River and Sage Creek bisect the Sage Creek Unit.All four units are heavily infl uenced by reservoir operations. Reservoir water-level fl uctuations can be such that refuge lands are rendered dry, with a stretch of sandy shoreline abutting greasewood, rock, and sage uplands.
Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir. Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.Graph of maximum and minimum acre-feet water storage in Pathfinder Reservoir.
Refuge Administration
Areas that remain within the refuge boundary would continue to be managed by the Service in accordance with the MOU between Reclamation and the Service that established roles and responsibilities for each agency (appendix D). Refuge lands would be roughly defi ned by the area west of Horse Creek to the current west refuge boundary including the Steamboat Lake area, reservoir backwater areas, and the Sweetwater River section currently within the boundary of the Sweetwater Arm Unit. Areas east of this region are highly infl uenced by reservoir operations, thereby decreasing habitat quality for migratory birds.
Areas west of Horse Creek are less infl uenced by fl uctuating reservoir levels and do not contain steep cutbanks with blowing sand. The area of contiguous lands would be posted and managed as a national wildlife refuge, which would help promote the Service’s mission and rectify the situation of intermingled agency lands with little signage or fencing to delineate federal land ownership and allowed public uses. Management agreements would be reviewed and updated or terminated as appropriate to address management of remaining refuge lands. Refuge staff would investigate potential land exchanges with other agencies to round out the refuge boundary.
Refuge Uses
Existing uses on remaining refuge lands would be evaluated to determine if the use is appropriate on a refuge (appendix E). If the use is found to be appropriate, a compatibility determination would be made before the use is allowed to occur on the refuge (appendix F). Compatibility determinations for proposed refuge uses are included in this draft plan (appendixes G–J). If an existing use is not appropriate, it would be eliminated or modifi ed as expeditiously as practicable. Uses occurring on lands that are removed from the refuge boundary would not be subject to Service Chapter 3 — Alternatives 25
laws, regulations, and policies and may continue to occur under management by Reclamation and/or BLM or its respective designee.
Habitat ManagementReservoir (Deepwater)
Deep, open water outside the Service’s sphere of management would continue to provide resting habitat for migratory bird species and serve as resting habitat under management by Reclamation or its respective designee (that is, without a Service presence). Areas defi ned by steep, sandy cutbanks and infl uenced annually by water manipulations would be removed from the MOU between the Service and Reclamation (appendix D).
Wetlands and Riparian Areas
No management of refuge wetlands would occur due to lack of water rights and infrastructure. Riparian areas and wetlands in the Steamboat Lake area would continue to receive water based on natural runoff and hydrological processes.
Uplands
The existing MOA (contract #14-06-700-4737) between the Service and the BLM, whereby BLM administers grazing, would be reviewed by both agencies and amended as needed or revoked. Fencing and other infrastructure needed to facilitate a grazing program would be evaluated and addressed. Uplands management would continue to use grazing as a habitat management tool under special use permit. The grazing program (stocking rates, duration, and seasons) would be evaluated to determine appropriate grazing methods. Boundary fencing would be installed to permit active management of the grazing program.The use of additional habitat management tools (e.g., prescribed fi re, mechanical, chemical) would be considered where appropriate.
Threatened and Endangered Species and State Species of Concern
Monitoring for the presence of threatened and endangered species and state species of concern on the refuge would be increased.
Invasive Species
Monitoring and management of invasive species on the refuge would be increased.
Visitor ServicesHunting
The refuge would continue to be open to hunting of ducks, coots, mergansers, deer, and pronghorn in accordance with dates and regulations established by
the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. Hunting programs would be enhanced to provide a higher-quality hunt or expanded where possible.
Fishing
Refuge staff would consider opening the refuge to fi shing through the CFR process. A compatibility determination would be performed to ensure compliance with refuge goals and objectives. Boating would be controlled to minimize impacts to migratory bird species. Fishing would be permitted year-round in accordance with dates and regulations established by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, except where otherwise posted. Modifi cation of the refuge boundary may result in the loss of some fi shing habitat.
Wildlife Observation, Photography, EnvironmentalEducation, and Interpretation
Efforts to provide wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation opportunities on the refuge would be expanded. The interpretive overlook off Highway 220 in the Sweetwater Arm Unit would be maintained and enhanced. The Service would continue to partner with Audubon Wyoming to expand opportunities for these four uses on the refuge. With appropriate planning, this area could be used to educate the public on the differences between Reclamation, BLM, and Service lands and land management directives.
Nonwildlife-dependent Recreation
Nonwildlife-dependent recreation would not be permitted on the refuge.
Research and Science
Baseline data for habitat and wildlife on the refuge would be acquired. Refuge staff would partner with universities and other entities to collect baseline data to identify refuge resources and obtain a better understanding of the effects of management activities.
Partnerships
Regional offi ce and refuge staff would work with Reclamation, the BLM, Natrona County, and WGFD to accomplish refuge boundary modifi cation. The CCP would identify lands to be eliminated from the refuge boundary, and establish the process and timeline by which to complete the boundary modifi cation.Greater emphasis would be placed on maintaining existing and developing new partnerships to achieve refuge goals and objectives. Efforts would be increased to focus research-based partnerships on collecting baseline data for the refuge. 26 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Operations
The refuge would be managed by Service staff headquartered at the Arapaho NWR near Walden, Colorado. One additional full-time equivalent (FTE) would be hired to perform increased management activities at Pathfi nder NWR and the Laramie Plains refuges.
3.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Table 2 provides descriptions of management actions and environmental consequences by resource and use topics for each of the three alternatives.
Table 2. Comparison of management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming.
Alternative AAlternative C
(No Action)Alternative B(Proposed Action)
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION—Management Actionsions
Reclamation administers all Same as alternative A, plus Same as alternative B, except
lands within the Pathfi nder review, update, and/or terminate lands eliminated from refuge
Project boundary for project management agreements where boundary (the Goose Bay,
purposes (irrigation, fl ood control, appropriate. Deweese Creek, and Sage
hydroelectric power generation).Creek units and portions of the Investigate potential land Sweetwater Arm Unit) revert to The Service manages refuge lands exchanges with other agencies to prerefuge administrative status for wildlife purposes. round out the refuge boundary. (i.e., Reclamation, BLM).
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION—Environmental Consequences
Differing missions and overlaying Agency coordination would be Same as alternative B, except
responsibilities of managing improved and roles would be concentrating resources on
agencies (Reclamation, BLM, clarifi ed, resulting in improvement manageable lands would allow
Service) can hinder agencies’ of habitat conditions to support limited funds to be spent on
individual and combined migratory bird species. a smaller area that meets the
effectiveness at managing Service mission (quality migratory
lands and contribute to habitat and resident bird habitat).
degradation.
RESERVOIR (DEEPWATER) HABITAT—Management Actions
No management of reservoir Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.
water levels for migratory bird
species and other wildlife.
RESERVOIR (DEEPWATER) HABITAT—Environmental Consequences
The reservoir would continue Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.
to provide resting areas for
waterfowl and other migratory
bird species during spring and fall
migration. Emergent vegetation
along the shoreline of the
reservoir, which provides a food
source for migratory birds and
other wildlife, would be minimally
present due to fl uctuations
in water levels (20 ft/yr) and
resulting steep, sandy cutbanks
that prohibit vegetation growth.Chapter 3 — Alternatives 27
Table 2. Comparison of management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming.
Alternative AAlternative C
(No Action)Alternative B(Proposed Action)
WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN HABITAT—Management Actions
Provide playas and wetlands Increase efforts to monitor Same as alternative B.
for the benefi t of waterfowl, and manage refuge wetlands
shorebirds, and other migratory and riparian areas through
bird species.partnerships and other means.
The Service has no water
rights on the refuge, and North
Platte River depletion issues
preclude the acquisition of water
rights and/or development of
impoundments on the refuge.
WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN HABITAT—Environmental Consequences
Playas and impoundments
Same as alternative A, except
Same as alternative B, except
would continue to fi ll and dry as
by studying the wetland
Goose Bay, Deweese Creek, and
natural processes dictate, with no
characteristics, refuge staff and
Sage Creek units would no longer
management actions to infl uence
partners could develop potential
be part of the refuge.
them.
management actions that may
Management actions for habitats
improve wetlands for the benefi t of waterfowl and waterbirds.
below the reservoir high water
line would be subject to the
impacts of inundation if the
reservoir water level rises.
Few options would exist for
effective habitat management on
wetland areas.
UPLANDS HABITAT—Management Actions
Graze uplands in conjunction
Evaluate effectiveness of grazing Same as alternative B.
with BLM allotments. BLM
program, and alter where
administers grazing program
necessary, to achieve refuge
through MOA.
objectives.
Consider other upland
management techniques (chemical,
mechanical, prescribed fi re).28 Draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder National Wildlife Refuge, WY
Table 2. Comparison of management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming.
Alternative AAlternative C
(No Action)Alternative B(Proposed Action)
UPLANDS HABITAT—Environmental Consequences
Grazing would continue to occur
Increased monitoring and
Increased monitoring and
on adjacent BLM lands.
evaluation of grazing effects would
evaluation of grazing impacts
A lack of Service coordination
assist with management decisions.
would assist with management decisions.
with BLM would result in grazing
Some fencing would likely be
on the refuge that may not be
constructed in the Sweetwater
A smaller area (less refuge
compliant with refuge policy.
Arm Unit of the refuge. The
uplands) would need to be
Updating the grazing program
Goose Bay, Dewesse Creek and
managed.
may affect BLM permittees.
Sage Creek Units would likely remain unfenced due to the fact
Better ability to control and
Continued unanalyzed impacts from grazing could result in criticism that the Service is not appropriately managing lands in
that fencing small units may be detrimental to wildlife. Small, fenced parcels impede migration and animal movement.
implement grazing program per refuge policy due to a smaller geographical area and removal of isolated parcels from the refuge.
the Refuge System.
Grazing operations for BLM permittees may be affected.
Better ability to fence refuge areas (gentle slopes of backwater and riparian areas are better
Small, isolated parcels and areas
suited to fencing and posting).
with steep, sandy cutbanks would
remain diffi cult to manage for
grazing purposes.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND STATE SPECIES OF CONCERN—
Management Actions
Manage for threatened and
Same as alternative A, plus
Same as alternative B.
endangered species as discovered
increase monitoring for presence
on the refuge.
of threatened and endangered
species and state species of
concern.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND STATE SPECIES OF CONCERN—
Environmental Consequences
Federally listed species would
Same as alternative A, except
Same as alternative B.
be protected from intentional or
threatened and endangered
unintended impacts by banning or
species and state species of
modifying activities where these
concern would be detected sooner.
species occur.
Threatened and endangered
species and state species of
concern may be present on refuge
lands but would go undetected.
INVASIVE SPECIES—Management Actionsions
As funding is available, attempt
Increase efforts to monitor and
Same as alternative B.
to control invasive species in
control invasive species through
accordance with federal and state
partnerships and other means.
laws, policies, and guidelines.
Consider additional management
techniques (chemical, mechanical,
prescribed fi re).Chapter 3 — Alternatives 29
Table 2. Comparison of management alternatives and environmental consequences for the draft CCP and EA, Pathfi nder NWR, Wyoming.
Alternative AAlternative C
(No Action)Alternative B(Proposed Action)
INVASIVE SPECIES—Environmental Consequences
Management of invasive species Proactive approach by refuge Same as alternative B, except
would continue to be reactionary staff and partners to monitor eradication efforts would be
(addressed when problems for infestations and obtain the condensed, improving the
are identifi ed and as resources necessary resources would Service’s ability to eliminate or
permit). eradicate some invasive species control invasive species.
from the units and prevent ones Some invasive species may from becoming established.become established or expand.
VISITOR SERVICES, Hunting—Management Actionsions
Continue hunting program but
Same as alternative A, plus work
Same as alternative B.
review for compatibility.
with WGFD to evaluate and
enhance hunting program.
VISITOR SERVICES, Hunting—Environmental Consequences
Unlimited vehicle access wou